"the maybe-we’ll-all-get-rich piece"
It also implies that maybe you won't get rich. So these journalists didn't get rich. They made a gamble and lost. End of story.
It also implies that maybe you won't get rich. So these journalists didn't get rich. They made a gamble and lost. End of story.
I have little idea what will happen here, I don't know any more about the story than presented in the article, but an awful lot of securities sellers have gone to prison despite their customers being aware in theory that their investments might fail. If there's any merit to the claims, this is certainly not the end of the story.
Journalists must have known they are gambling if they don#t receive real money for their work. If not, they were incredibly naive and perhaps have learned a valuable lesson. Namely, don't rely on empty promises.
The article mentions stock options. Stock options also don't always pan out. It rather feels as if these journalists feel entitled somehow to their riches, as they have seen their brothers in tech receive. But they forget to think about the people in tech who toiled in startups that failed and who also received nothing.
If they misrepresent the risks, if they issue more tokens than what they said, that's all fraud.
"you may get back less than you put in" isn't carte blanche to fleece the investors.
Once again, no idea if this is true. But suggesting there's no indication is disingenuous.
I still think it is like startup options: people have to learn that if they want to earn x, they should put it into the contract, and not be satisfied with a vague promise of possible riches in the future.
It is so basic that I find it hard to sympathize.
Issuing stock options and following all the rules of SEC designed to reduce (though, naturally, not eliminate) fraud is legal. Issuing promises of "maybe get rich" without following this bare minimum of requirements is a crime.