> It's a cautionary tale for any crypto exchange looking to get ahead by faking volume
Is that news outlet openly writing for fraudsters? What's their next article, 5 best ways to open an illegal casino?
I think comparing this to code optimization is a category error. It'd be closer to saying "insider trading gone wrong". The opposite of catastrophic failure here is the successful execution of a crime.
If they led with "BaseFEX accidentally bankrupts itself with wash trading scheme", the rest of the content might land a bit better.
The fact that it's hosted on the blog of an options trading product and the statement that the post is "a solid guide for anyone who knows a bit of coding, and wants to take advantage of shady crypto exchanges" also plays a part in the weirdness of the framing, IMO.
Overall, while interesting, it's a mess of a post.
The issue is not really the specific word used. The issue is the overall framing and the ambiguity that the framing introduces.
Now imagine the exchange didn’t bankrupt itself and successfully kept these trades under the radar and then went on to become a popular product.
Some time later, the government catches wind and begins an investigation.
Imagine how odd a story about this would be if framed as: “The dos and don’ts of wash trading”. With content like “do make sure you don’t fall prey to smart Python programmers” and “don’t get caught”.
It’d be a lot weirder than “Popular exchange in trouble after the feds discovered evidence of early wash trading”.
If the content and framing worked for you, great. But we’ll have to agree to disagree about its effectiveness.
I just used "wrong", not specifically with regards to ethics. Wash trading is also dangerous and illegal.
The author comes off sounding like a sociopath.
It simply implies that someone was harmed when that wasn’t the intention.
I would be surprised if most people trying to do some semblance of a robbery on a financial institution actually believe they are harming others. If it goes cleanly, who got “hurt”? A bunch of rich people? Insurance?
I think that most people who are stealing from others probably go to great lengths to contort their thinking such that it makes their theft OK in some way.
If you're engaging in fraud or theft, you are undeniably intending to harm others. Making excuses such as "they can afford it" is not claiming there is no harm, it's claiming that the harm is justified.
Enough with the double standards.
The only ones who can commit "sins" and still hold any moral high ground are "Sin Eaters", but they don't do those things for any personal benefit but rather to correct improper benefits other have received or seek to receive.
The rest of us are just selfish hypocritical trash that should either change our ways or stfu.
Thus, it has “gone wrong”.