That sounds a lot like what I understood how etrade platforms like Robinhood work when I was reading up on the GME shorts fiasco.
I definitely only have a surface level understanding of it, but it sounded like the stock brokers have a buffer in-between the transaction request to buy/sell, and they first try to handle that locally within their portfolio, before expanding to external trades. And if there’s a favorable internal trade, brokers like Robinhood siphon out a little something something for themselves.
Sounds like people are getting busted for doing essentially the same thing Wallstreet has been doing for decades. Again.
Mind, the people who do that are the victims here!
I didn’t explain how exactly they were harmed. It’s actually kinda funny, too.
It costs virtually nothing to create crypto-tokens. So that’s what people do. Do some wash trades, slip some money to influencers to hype their new token as the next big thing, then offload the whole supply and run with the money. The “investors” quickly discover that these tokens are only good for one thing: To sell to a greater fool. At that point, there are no more buyers.
The accused obtained such useless tokens. The indictment doesn’t say how. I guess they simply bought it for next to nothing.
Effectively, they tricked the victims’ bots into buying these tokens at face value. The victims were left with crypto supposedly worth $25 million but in reality unsellable. If this was stealing $25 million, then I wonder about the legality of selling these crypto tokens in the first place.
Eventually, all crypto is like that. Some cryptocurrencies are used as payment systems, but eventually something better must come along. Then that currency becomes unsellable. Someone must always be left holding the bag, as it is said in crypto circles.
I think they are guilty of fraud. But I do wonder: If we are to accept that leaving someone with worthless crypto is equal to stealing money, what does that mean for the legality of crypto as a whole?
That sounds a lot like what I understood how etrade platforms like Robinhood work when I was reading up on the GME shorts fiasco.
I definitely only have a surface level understanding of it, but it sounded like the stock brokers have a buffer in-between the transaction request to buy/sell, and they first try to handle that locally within their portfolio, before expanding to external trades. And if there’s a favorable internal trade, brokers like Robinhood siphon out a little something something for themselves.
Sounds like people are getting busted for doing essentially the same thing Wallstreet has been doing for decades. Again.
It reminded me of high-frequency trading.
Mind, the people who do that are the victims here!
I didn’t explain how exactly they were harmed. It’s actually kinda funny, too.
It costs virtually nothing to create crypto-tokens. So that’s what people do. Do some wash trades, slip some money to influencers to hype their new token as the next big thing, then offload the whole supply and run with the money. The “investors” quickly discover that these tokens are only good for one thing: To sell to a greater fool. At that point, there are no more buyers.
The accused obtained such useless tokens. The indictment doesn’t say how. I guess they simply bought it for next to nothing.
Effectively, they tricked the victims’ bots into buying these tokens at face value. The victims were left with crypto supposedly worth $25 million but in reality unsellable. If this was stealing $25 million, then I wonder about the legality of selling these crypto tokens in the first place.
Eventually, all crypto is like that. Some cryptocurrencies are used as payment systems, but eventually something better must come along. Then that currency becomes unsellable. Someone must always be left holding the bag, as it is said in crypto circles.
I think they are guilty of fraud. But I do wonder: If we are to accept that leaving someone with worthless crypto is equal to stealing money, what does that mean for the legality of crypto as a whole?