Hacker News Reader

Comment by franciscop | Hacker News Reader

Because he didn't. As he explains, it seems like all he did was do a retweet of what he thought might be a good thing (like he does a lot), not create the coin and not profited from it. According to his own words:

> "A few hours ago I posted a tweet, as I have so many other times, supporting a supposed private enterprise with which I obviously have no connection whatsoever. I was not aware of the details of the project and after having become aware of it I decided not to continue spreading the word (that is why I deleted the tweet)."

Either the headlines know something we don't know to say he "backtracks on a memecoin" and "Argentinian President Milei launched a memecoin, $LIBRA" or they are not true. Given the context, it seems to be the latter, so I wonder why they'd be lying?

View on HN

Even if everything you said here is true, he's the president of the country. It is not unreasonable for the president of a nation to do the research of what they're endorsing before they endorse it, instead of backtracking immediately after backlash.

It’s not unreasonable to backpedal even harder

Sure, it's better that he backpedaled than doubling down, but that doesn't mean that he cannot be criticized for the initial transgression.

If I drive drunk and then hit someone with my car, I'm not immediately forgiven just because I called 911 and offered to pay the hospital bill.

Retweet doesn't mean endorsement.

he didnt just retweet. even if he did, president of the country should be held to higher standards than your average influencer.

Standard defence after sth retweeted blew up. And it doesn't work like that.

Also, it wasn't "just a retweet". He literally wrote that he supported it.

I'm responding to the post above, not TFA.

Who decided that? Would you hold that same standard if a politician you didn’t like did it?

I don’t like most politicians, but if Bernie Sanders (someone I do like) blanket retweeted a crypto scam, I would say that that’s bullshit. Unless he was the biggest moron on the planet, he would have to know that a retweet will be read as an endorsement by a large number of people.

A public figure, particularly a high-profile elected figure, particularly a figure who is in charge of how laws are enforced, should be held to a high standard.

But as other people have pointed out, it actually wasn’t just a retweet.

> As he explains, it seems like all he did was do a retweet of what he thought might be a good thing

No, he wrote the Tweet himself. His words, not a retweet.

It’s right there in the article. I don’t know why people are trying to defend him and rewrite the story.

I would think a head of state has a responsibility to check what he promotes.

I thought a military had a responsibility to run tribunals and then execute a head of state that uses their power for a promotion, greatly reducing the chance of getting this far into a fraudulent one. Bringing a promotions run to an end, leaving the impeached with whatever profits were already made is obviously not good enough for sorting out the problem.

> Because he didn't.

Really not sure why you say that with such authority.

https://youtu.be/EqizJTbxAEM?t=3891

Reply on news.ycombinator.com