If someone came up to me and said they were selling magic beans that would grow a vine up to the moon where riches await, I would politely decline.
It doesn't matter if the seller substitutes the word "crypto" for "beans".
What's even better are the "pros". In their pitch deck, only shown to whales, they promised "High Returns With No Risk".
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FhUdRVMXgAATCGU?format=jpg&name=...
Anyone who looks at a slide or printout with "high returns" and "no risk" on the same page and who doesn't immediately come to the conclusion that they're being scammed deserves every penny of loss they suffer.
Here I sit with "enough" (more than billions of others on Earth, really) watching a clawing mass of rabid others, each possessing way more than "enough" already, frantically scrambling for their spot at the trough so they can go to the moon and get a yacht or some stupid shit like that-- laughing.
This is not money, not on a bank with FDIC, and not on a brokerage with SIPC. If you don't think so, I've got some usdb on realmoneyexchange.com to sell you.
I have little sympathy for anyone who got burnt by playing in the crypto space.
That still remains to be seen.
All these cases are hard to prosecute (or so prosecutors think) because it is often hard to prove intent. So prosecutors have to be aggressive in getting people to flip (and in the media, and building patterns of prosecutions for a novel offence) which often leads to wildly inconsistent sentencing.
I don't think I have seen a group of offences in this area where the sentencing seemed right across the board. It often makes no sense at all (even the decision of who to prosecute seems wrong, there was a case in the UK where a witness to an insider trading case was literally in court, giving evidence and admitted to crimes...nothing happened...he also walked from any prosecution in that case despite him netting tens of millions from insider trading).