This mentality of blaming the victim can muddy the waters and make it easier for criminals to get off the hook though.
If I openly leave a gold bar in the back seat of my car and don't lock the car and then park it in a major city it will get stolen. Is the thief to blame here? Absolutely. Could I have done more to protect my valuables? Absolutely.
So with any scam, you can say the scammers are bad (which is true) but the scammed could also have done more to protect themselves. Both of these things can be true at the same time.
I've seen no better example of this than Russia's unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine. Is Russia the bad guy? Absolutely. Have the US (through NATO, primarily) and Ukraine made mistakes along the way too? Absolutely. Does this make the US and Ukraine responsible for the invasion? No.
Please, for your own sake, get out of this binary thinking.
Disavowing responsibility from the scammed actually does people a huge disservice. It's not victim-blaming. It's a teachable moment.
E.g. instead of having a never-ending discussion on how exactly a perpetrator/victim share blame, we can shelve the discussion on what share of the blame goes towards the victim, and instead focus on how to best deal with the scammers.
If we get trapped in a never-ending discussion on blame sharing, we never get to deal with the scammers through action (this is what I meant by muddying the waters, it’s an involuntary and voluntary phenomenon that can delay action indefinitely).
People just don't go around handing out money. Early Bitcoin miners went through the effort of setting up mining rigs (which is no longer practical for an individual). They actually did something, and had some skin in the game. Did they hang on to those early coins until this year? I have no idea.
But people that just buy into coins because OMG its the next big thing, are purely speculating, which is nothing more than a form of gambling. Do I feel sorry for people with a gambling addiction? Yes I do, and I know someone that 'retired early (35)' to play poker professionally.
To much of the coin and NFT space to me smells of a combination of pyramid scheme and MLM. By its very nature it rejects regulation, it is decentralized. Which is one of the reasons, to me, that it is suspect.
Playing poker professionally is not a retirement, and no one really playing poker for income is addicted, I can assure you (at least not for long).
These days, playing live is the only way to get an edge (correct me? Been a while), and that would be a boring, nauseating job, right around the pay scale and routine of “club bouncer” if you’re good.
I played poker for my sole income for three years after college, traveling the world playing online. It was occasionally a lot of fun, morally painful, so stressful and not very well compensated. I would be rich now if I’d gone straight into programming instead of spending my 20s “avoiding work” by working my ass off to monetize my hobbies.
At peak covid, all the games dried up and even the pros went slumming. I personally saw Phil Ivey at a 2/5 game (!) at the Aria on a random Monday because that was the only game going and he hadn’t had any live practice in quite a long time.
If social was full of people showing off all the stiff they bought with the Nigerian Prince’s money maybe. Seems more like a lottery to me, but even that feels like a poor analogy.
The difference is crypto has made people wealthy, probably with a large luck component and others want in on that.
Grifters should be punished for their scams, and it's also acceptable for "investors" on these scams to lose their money i think (that's a hard punishment already; no need for anything extra). Thinking of it the other way around: as a society, it wouldn't be nice to bail out or compensate these "investments", as doing so would encourage people to keep doing throwing their money on things they don't have any clue about and expect to be compensated if it turns out bad.
You're missing the point. When somebody makes a poor decision on an investment, they are not a "victim".
One of the ways that a power structure discriminates against low-IQ people (born that way) is by ignoring their suffering because ‘they deserve it for being stupid/easily taken advantage of.’
Insurance agencies are wrestling with this because as society ages, there are known drops in IQ the make the elderly more susceptible to scams, because low-IQ behavior correlates with high-trust behavior (because they have to rely more on others for survival). Some agencies are offering scam insurance for the elderly.
As we age, the likelihood that we are scammed approaches 1. Scammers take advantage of this situation and society would be better off if scammers were taken care of by the state.