Is the underlying psychology the same? As you mentioned, one is a smart career move. Your desire to emulate your boss may stem from your selfish desire to promote your career, not a desire to connect with important members of your community.
otherwise, the winery or baseball card issuer is engaged in fraud, and the seller is too, and the boss who recommended them is as well
this is what people find to be… at best … incomplete logic. there is a Howey test interpretation that would allow for this expansion, and crypto folks would gain power by having it applied congruently to those physical established artificial scarcity collections too, because Congress would reevaluate this inconvenience more holistically. There is another interpretation where the SEC makes no sense at all, and has to provide a clear exemption framework for crypto assets to navigate in order to be treated the same as wine bottles and baseball cards, ignoring the current parasocial relationship and reliance that crypto traders have with crypto project creators.
its why their discords say “no price discussion”, amongst many other communication nuances and project structuring to avoid securities issues. dont confuse celebrities and youtubers for the actual teams.
the only teams that have been sued by the SEC are ones that deviated in very predictable ways, there have been no surprises in the cases the SEC have brought, compared to the legal guidance that is given by law firms in the US
its just that the SEC then pretends as if it just hasnt gotten to other project issuers yet, and when not going after a specific project it just says “all cryptos are securities” because theyre going after an exchange, at the moment, and wont tell the exchange which ones
everything suggests the SEC’s logic is flimsy, or needs to apply even more broadly in a way that makes the SEC’s logic flimsy. The SEC is dragging this out because they understand the same thing, that all paths lead to their charter being modified even though they were just hoping that crypto went away.
unfortunately here, the SEC is still relying on an ambiguous interpretation of securities, unilaterally deeming something a security and simultaneously charging people that promoted it, who are relying on assurances and a parallel set of behaviors that something is not a security.
There might be some parallels in Art and NFT but there the issue is completly different and is more of grey area of what you are actually bying than if it's an investment or not.
and many crypto issuers focus on their nonspeculative utility
everything you described is exactly the problem. The SEC is saying that because any individual may have decided to buy them as an investment, then the SEC can ignore everything to the contrary. except the SEC hasnt actually ignored everything to the contrary because they havent charge crypto teams that focus exclusively on nonspeculative utility and other nuances. they charged teams that promised the price would go up. believe it or not, very many teams focus on the nonspeculative utility exclusively, the prevailing legal opinions from law firms in the US have had this advice to crypto teams for at least 6 years, and civil charges the SEC has brought have not undermined these assumptions. in any case, the SEC then turns around and says “theyre all securities” when speaking publicly or when charging an exchange. now we’ve come full circle between yours and mine perspective: either apply the same logic to “things with intrinsic value (that you respect)” or point out exactly which way for digital asset collections to be exempt as well.
https://www.snexplores.org/article/imagine-friends-parasocia...
Will wikipedia work?
The Wikipedia article claims we treat YouTuber like our personal friend.
The parent post claims ape don't have different caregory for boss that can advance your career and a celebrity that, at its best, can be treated as a friend ..
To judge from the origin of the term,[0] we are calling a "parasocial relationship" the phenomenon of mass conditioning of consumers by controlled media. There is enough clear evidence of a state's ability to affect public discourse by controlling entertainment (and news) media.[1]
Although people may be inclined to credulity or at least some basic level of cooperation, most people can see when they are being duped in a tangible way.
There are extreme cases, which the article calls, "extreme parasocial behaviour".
Other terms exist to describe a person who believes things that are not real, highly improbable, or hallucinatory. And in the marketplace, there is caveat emptor, the complete phrase being,
"Let a purchaser beware, for he ought not to be ignorant of the nature of the property which he is buying from another party."[2]
[0] > Evolution of the term > Parasocial interaction was first described from the perspective of media and communication studies. In 1956, Horton and Wohl explored the different interactions between mass media users and media figures and determined the existence of a parasocial relationship (PSR), where the user acts as though they are involved in a typical social relationship.