Two problems: 1. People don’t read the source. 2. People can’t detect subtle or not-so-subtle cues.
Case in point: there’s already a sibling discussing “There are no risk factors” as if it’s actually a quote from Brian Armstrong.
"We have no risk of bankruptcy" - objectively false statement
"it is possible, however unlikely, that a court would decide to consider customer assets as part of the company in bankruptcy proceedings" - goes against the entire point of his thread, and is also exactly why this disclosure was required
The quote above seems like a completely accurate and fair characterization.
Isn't that a statement that the SEC should fine them for?
edit: also, even if it's not a direct quote.. c'mon, it is what he's saying. The SEC made a rule that applies _specifically for crypto companies_, saying they have to disclose that crypto assets under their custody could potentially be taken in a bankruptcy.. and this guy goes on to say what he was just forced to disclose is not true. It doesn't get more obvious.
> Please ignore our SEC disclosure and half-billion dollar quarterly loss, and instead trust my unregulated statements posted on Twitter.
As actually possibly coming from the mouth of the CEO of a company (that is not Elon).
> People can’t detect subtle or not-so-subtle cues.
Or they just skim part of the comment and jump to reply immediately. Same effect.
>We have no risk of bankruptcy
Reality is that every company has greater than "no risk" of bankruptcy. That's why regulators force them to spell out their risks in filings.
It is entirely reasonable to believe that a large proportion of Coinbase users would read, "We have no risk of bankruptcy" and choose to leave their money at Coinbase believing that the CEO must have used some financial mechanism to 100% prevent bankruptcy.
Words have meaning, and when you say, "no risk of bankruptcy" there are a lot of people that will be duped into believing that literally.