Funny how the Kardashians never got smoked by the SEC. They were reported for the same exact shit.
Edit looks like Kim got a slap on the wrist. Her net worth is 1.7 billion and she got fined ~a million dollars. She paid 0.05% of her net worth for breaking a law and fucking over many thousands of poor people. Fuck that.
They did. It’s mentioned and linked in the article. https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/03/kim-kardashian-charged-by-sec-for-pushing-crypto-reaches-1-26m-settlement/
By buying one of 10,000 NFTs worth around $800 each
I’m gonna stop you right there…
Nice to see celebrities bitch slapped back into place. Now do the same with CEO’s.
Martha did time. She should pick who goes next.
So today we’ve learned once again, that given enough money, breaking the law and scamming people is fine
This isn’t even a controversial opinion: celebrities shouldn’t endorse things that they know nothing about, especially things as dumb and scammy as NFTs and crypto.
celebrities shouldn’t endorse things that they know nothing about
That is the celebrity business model: Get paid to be the pretty face of shit you know nothing about.
Nah. You are putting your face and reputation on the line every time you endorse something on any media, it’s certainly NOT free money just for posting some tweets.
So, don’t sell people’s trust in you for money, it’s not worth it, otherwise, there always a chance that this happens and you face consequences for your carelessness.
Yes! Not just face/reputation but they can be legally involved. Such as the recent suit with FTX and all the celebrities involved
https://youtube.com/watch?v=EWZylEVJvPc&si=b7rML2niOrJDcIjM
Nah, they do this shit all the time and there is no real consequences
Exhibit A
But every time people talk about Matt Damon nowadays, they are talking about how bad his endorsement of crypto.com is, instead of how good of actor he is.
Reputation.
Has he been sued for pumping up that fraudulent business?
Nope.
there is no real consequences
I guess that depends on what you term a “real” consequence. If legal justice is the only “real” consequence then yeah, there’s been no “real” consequence. But we could sit and debate for hours about what constitutes a “real” consequence as it’s an arbitrary term.
Real: (n) existing in fact and not imaginary
That is what I meant by real.
Yeah, the creators of exploding kittens bought into NFC’s and tried to sell them to people. Now, I refuse to buy any of their products. Great job, guys.
Stoner Cats sounds so incredibly bland. “Weed but with cats, teehee”
Eh the problem here is that nfts are a scam. At end of day celebrities will just move on the next endorsement, pay a small fine who cares.
Nfts have scammed millions from people who can’t see pay the get rich quick pyramid scheme.
So it kind of sucks they did this, as their implementation of NFT’s was a decent use case for NFT’s outside of being investments. DRM rights that abide by first sale doctrine even if company dies is a good reason for a blockchain. Too bad they decided to treat it as something to invest in.
What the fuck is a good NFT implementation, something that works? Or something that might be beneficial for humankind like at all?
It’s just crap, sha an image, toss it into a blockchain, … uh, …profit?
What a scam and waste of people’s brains.
The only thing I’ve heard that made sense was using it for things like contracts? But even then barely.
if the company dies, so does the server that hosts the image that your nft links to. If the company dies, the nft dies with it, regardless of who currently “owns” it, or how many times it’s been resold
What rights do you have after a first sale if the company the original contract was with dies? Someone else going to honor your NFT? What if the company also owned the blockchain your NTF is on?
Surely someone would have spent the $800 to get access to the tv series, make it available on the internet and blow the value of all the NFTs out of the water.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The SEC has charged the Hollywood power couple’s NFT-based web series, “Stoner Cats,” calling the NFTs unregistered securities.
Per the SEC, “Stoner Cats is an adult animated television show about house cats that become sentient after being exposed to their owner’s medical marijuana.” By buying one of 10,000 NFTs worth around $800 each, fans could get exclusive access to the six-episode animated series, which features celebrities like Jane Fonda, Chris Rock and Seth MacFarlane.
Another great quote from this formal SEC document: “@StonerCatsTV tweeted on September 7, 2021 a meme suggesting that the smartest thing to do during a dip in the crypto markets would be to ‘Buy more ETH & sweep the Stoner Cats floor.
There will also be a Fair Fund that will return money to people who were financially harmed by purchasing the NFTs.
Last year, Kim Kardashian reached a $1.26 million settlement with the SEC over failing to properly disclose that she was being paid to promote a crypto asset security sold by EthereumMax.
“Regardless of whether your offering involves beavers, chinchillas or animal-based NFTs, under the federal securities laws, it’s the economic reality of the offering – not the labels you put on it or the underlying objects – that guides the determination of what’s an investment contract and therefore a security,” said Gurbir S. Grewal, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, in a statement.
The original article contains 364 words, the summary contains 231 words. Saved 37%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
