I mean, it's some progress, I guess.
How long until the US Gov goes after all the folks who keep doing pump & dump/"rug pull" b.s with new coins? There seems to be a never-ending trail of those.
How long until the US Gov goes after all the folks who keep doing pump & dump/"rug pull" b.s with new coins? There seems to be a never-ending trail of those.
The SEC is mostly complaint-driven. When someone complains their money was stolen, they can investigate. So enforcement actions come during the collapse phase of scams. The "cyber" enforcement staff was recently doubled, so enforcement actions should pick up soon.
The SEC pretty much shut down the ICO boom by sending out letters to coin issuers, "Please explain why your FooCoin isn't an unregistered securities offering." A few issuers filed an S-1 and registered as a security, while others just gave all the money back. We don't see many pure ICOs any more. We do see desperate attempts to make something a "utility token", used mostly for some other purpose than speculation.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/cybersecurity-enforcement-acti...
At least it would help set a public example for others.
Ever wondered why the majority of ICOs in the US have been stamped out since 2017/2018?
> How long until the US Gov goes after all the folks who keep doing pump & dump/"rug pull" b.s with new coins? There seems to be a never-ending trail of those.
Until regulations are much clearer and those people who create such coins have to be registered and fully doxxed and exposed first perhaps.
But either way, it is never going to fully go away, so some of them will slip through the net.
Now, i don't understand this particular tech very well, so i might make a mistake, but from what i understood, he was actually creating shitcoins "templates" which could seem seemingly rug pull immune (like wait time before withdrawal? Like i said, i don't know the space very well, it doesn't really interest me), but add a smallish backdoor. His company (it was 2 dev one marketing) then sold those coin template to diverse people and sold installation, formation and support of like six month.
Would his company be targeted by the US gov? it seems like he was enabling scammers while not taking any personnal money from anyone. Wasn't this very sketchy? By the way, i think his company at first wanted to be on the "Wish" market (cheap dropshipped stuff from China) and then sold dropshipping websites template, so i guess this was actually a moral upgrade?
"X didn't scam anyone, X just sold a template that allowed others to scam".
If there's no reasonable other legitimate purpose, then it's still profiting from scamming, albeit at one layer of abstraction.
> Would his company be targeted by the US gov?
If it turns out that he was enabling scammers to scam, then yeah - I would hope so.
The absence of news of prosecution does not necessarily mean an absence of prosecution. There are lots of reasons why you wouldn’t announce an ongoing investigation.
I do think there's a lot more underway and coming.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2022/comp-pr2022-1... (¶ 95 - ¶ 206)
[2] https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/framework-investment-contract-an...