[HN Gopher] Terraform Labs Caught Moving $4.8M Through Shell Com...
___________________________________________________________________
Terraform Labs Caught Moving $4.8M Through Shell Company
Author : marban
Score : 144 points
Date : 2022-06-01 14:10 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (cryptoslate.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (cryptoslate.com)
| baremetal wrote:
| He Kwon'ed some folks.
| rpadovani wrote:
| I was confused, so I checked: this is not related in any way to
| the Infrastructure as Code tool.
| orangepurple wrote:
| The title reads like some sort of experimental tech incubator
| within Hashicorp's Terraform team is shadily transferring
| millions. Hashicorp should sue for trademark dilution.
| CWuestefeld wrote:
| A company doesn't own their trademarks in the same sense as a
| patent or copyright, it's not like protecting IP. It's about
| protecting the consumer from being fooled.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| They chose a single English word as their trademark, there
| are dozens of others already using very similar marks:
|
| https://uspto.report/Search/terraform
|
| They shouldn't be surprised if someone else also uses the
| same word.
|
| I'm a big fan of Yiotro Games and his naming system for
| Antiyoy/Bleentoro/Achikaps/Shproty: Come up with a series of
| letters that are easy to read, pronounce, and remember, and
| which are not already words when naming a project. This
| results in no trouble with trademarks or domain names, gives
| easy SEO, and isn't that hard.
| orangepurple wrote:
| I got a good laugh out of Hashicorp's trademark
| registration.
|
| Cutlery??? Musical Instruments??? Fire-extinguishing
| apparatus??? Was someone drunk when filing?
|
| As part of their trademark documentation they took
| screenshots of Google search results and API docs (LOL)
|
| https://uspto.report/TM/88470183
|
| Primary US Classes 021: Electrical
| Apparatus, Machines and Supplies 023: Cutlery,
| Machinery, Tools and Parts Thereof 026:
| Measuring and Scientific Appliances 036:
| Musical Instruments and Supplies 038: Prints
| and Publications
|
| Primary International Class 009 - Primary
| Class (Electrical and scientific apparatus)
| Scientific, nautical, surveying, electric, photographic,
| cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signaling,
| checking (supervision), lifesaving and teaching apparatus
| and instruments; apparatus for recording, transmission or
| reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers,
| recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms
| for coin operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating
| machines, data processing equipment and computers; fire-
| extinguishing apparatus.
|
| The same goes for their T logo trademark:
| https://uspto.report/TM/88470285
|
| All of Hashicorp: https://uspto.report/company/Hashicorp-
| Inc
| kube-system wrote:
| Trademarks are industry specific, you specify what
| products/services you'll be using it for when you register.
| Because, for example, consumers aren't confused by an
| airline named "Delta" and a plumbing manufacturer called
| "Delta".
|
| Hashicorp's registration has a pretty decent lock on
| various descriptions of computer software.
| rschachte wrote:
| Why does everyone want to sue everyone these days?
| UncleEntity wrote:
| You literally have to or you risk losing your trademark.
|
| Patents and copyright you can not enforce if you choose not
| to but trademarks are a different animal.
| alangibson wrote:
| Registering a trademark isn't about suing anyone. It's
| about keeping others from frivolously suing you.
|
| If you are successful but don't register, someone _will_
| register it in the same industry and sue you for
| infringement. They'll also some times hijack your Amazon
| listings if you are a seller.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Prior use is an absolute defence. You might have problems
| with expansion (geographic, and type of business).
|
| _This is not legal advice, just my opinion._
| bgm1975 wrote:
| Free money (or the perception of it anyway).
| mcnichol wrote:
| Same here, I almost fell out of my chair.
| digianarchist wrote:
| I believe this is the name of the parent company behind the
| Luna cryptocurrency.
| paulgb wrote:
| Yes. Hashicorp is the company behind Terraform, Terraform
| Labs is the company behind Luna.
|
| The way you can tell them apart is that Hashicorp Terraform
| stabilizes at the state you configure it to, whereas
| Terraform Labs stabilizes at zero.
| holiveros wrote:
| Hahahaha, spilled my coffee over this :P
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| JustSomePackets wrote:
| I was also confused, thank you for checking and posting.
| Fargoan wrote:
| How were you confused? Did you not read the article?
| kube-system wrote:
| 1. The article does not mention that this is unaffiliated
| with Hashicorp.
|
| 2. > Please don't comment on whether someone read an
| article. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| Fargoan wrote:
| 1. It's a crypto news website 2. Why would you comment on
| an article if you haven't read it?
| stavros wrote:
| I call it "optimistic branch prediction".
| cercatrova wrote:
| Why read the article when you can go to the comments to
| find a correction? I very rarely if ever read the article
| these days as usually commentors here have much more
| pertinent and correct information.
| bhouston wrote:
| Terraform Labs was behind Terra USD stable coin which collapsed
| recently. It is run by South Korean crypto-entrepreneur Do Kwon.
|
| It would be interesting to see if Do Know emerges from this ultra
| rich as I suspect he was able to redirect some of his earnings
| (or should I call them winnings) out of the Terra USD stable coin
| and into other holdings.
| strikelaserclaw wrote:
| I mean, this guy is shady yes, but the people who bought into a
| financial instrument without really understanding it made their
| bed.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Only the greedy and stupid assume a 20% yield is risk free.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| Sometimes victims deserve blame. That doesn't mean they
| deserved to lose their money, but if they put money into an
| unregulated security that they didn't understand themselves,
| it's hard to not put some of the blame on them.
|
| Get rich quick financial scams have been around for a long
| time, I remember back in the 80's when my dad got scammed buy
| an oil "investment" - I don't even know how he found out
| about it, but they mailed him an official looking prospectus
| with geology reports showing oil deposits, and even a sample
| of oil that they'd "drilled" from one of the plots, all they
| asked from him was $5,000 to buy rights to the land, and soon
| he'd be making huge profit from oil leases.
|
| But that profit never came and soon the company just closed
| up shop.
|
| If he'd invested that $5,000 in the stock market, it would
| have grown to over $60,000 by the time he passed away 10
| years ago.
| Seriomino wrote:
| criddell wrote:
| That sounds like victim blaming.
|
| Most people couldn't tell you how a 401k works or even how a
| mutual fund works. It's why regulations are so important and
| it's why things like NFTs will probably soon be regulated as
| securities.
| boringg wrote:
| Who doesn't know how a 401k works? Honestly, who?
|
| Mutual fund - ok the mechanics are a bit more complicated
| but pretty straightforward.
| BaseballPhysics wrote:
| A large number of people don't even know how _tax
| brackets_ work (hence some people thinking that if they
| get a raise they 'll lose money). Basic financial
| literacy is not as common as you seem to think.
| rurp wrote:
| Similar to this, federal tax withholding is poorly
| understand by many people. A lot of people _want_ to give
| the govt an interest free loan every year and don 't
| understand why anyone wouldn't.
| BaseballPhysics wrote:
| Absolutely. I recently explained this to my retiree
| mother-in-law who was overpaying taxes each year for fear
| that she'd owe money at the end of the tax year,
| forgetting that every dollar she overpays is another
| dollar she's drawing down from her saving that isn't
| earning (modest) interest.
|
| Not that I can claim I'm being any smarter. I really
| should instruct my employer to reduce my tax
| withholdings, as I'm saving into a tax advantaged account
| to which contributions result in an income deduction.
| Every dollar I get at the end of the tax year in a refund
| is a dollar I'm not saving during the year (thus losing
| out on some long-term gains).
|
| But at least I know better. ;)
| rm_-rf_slash wrote:
| I would reckon minimum wage workers who have never been
| offered a company sponsored retirement plan or had enough
| to save for retirement at the end of the month, would not
| likely understand the mechanics of a system they can't
| even participate in.
|
| In other words, a lot of people.
| boringg wrote:
| No offense but I don't think it's minimum wage workers
| who are putting tons of money into the crypto market. And
| my argument about who doesn't understand 401k is to the
| demographic who invested in this specific asset class
| which likely isn't minimum wage workers.
| staticassertion wrote:
| The point is that people who participate in 401ks likely
| understand (in the majority) how they work to a
| reasonable degree. It's not reasonable to compare it to
| crypto where the people who participate understand
| virtually nothing about it.
| DANK_YACHT wrote:
| Financial instruments are incredibly complex. It's very
| dangerous to engage with them unless you fully understand
| what you're getting yourself into. Other people have a huge
| incentive to exploit any weakness in the financial asset,
| even in regulated industries. For instance, BlackRock
| bought credit default swaps in a Spanish company, and then
| paid that company to default on its debt, thus making a
| profit at the expense of the counter party. Regulation
| isn't going to magically make complicated financial
| instruments safe. People should be aware that they're
| dangerous and to stay away.
| nilsbunger wrote:
| In reality most people aren't very savvy though. Are you
| advocating they shouldn't invest in basic things like an
| S&P 500 fund or a "target date" fund or whatever? That
| kind of investment is almost a necessity in the US.
|
| I'd agree they shouldn't get into CDS and other esoteric
| instruments, and I also would put crypto investments in
| the 'esoteric' bucket.
| 55555 wrote:
| That is incredibly shady.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _For instance, BlackRock bought credit default swaps in
| a Spanish company, and then paid that company to default
| on its debt, thus making a profit at the expense of the
| counter party._
|
| Do you have a source for this? I feel like some details
| are lacking.
| DANK_YACHT wrote:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-11-17/bla
| cks...
|
| The tldr is that they bought credit default swaps for
| debt owed by Codere SA, and then offered the company
| financial assistance to restructure with the requirement
| that they pay their existing debt late to trigger a
| default.
| gvhst wrote:
| That's BlackStone, not BlackRock. They are totally
| different entities.
| mandevil wrote:
| Not sure about the specific instance, but Matt Levine's
| invaluable Money Stuff spent a lot of time discussing so-
| called "Manufactured Default": https://www.bloomberg.com/
| opinion/articles/2018-04-10/hovnan... is an instance of
| how complicated these can get.
|
| He discusses the morality of this particular issue, as
| part of a discussion on a proposal for the SEC to
| regulate it, here: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/arti
| cles/2021-12-16/the-se...
|
| Basically, Levine's argument is that as a result of these
| sorts of shenanigans, one giant investment fund (in this
| case, I guess, Black Rock, though again I don't know
| about this specific instance) gave money to an actual
| company that was employing people and doing something in
| the real world and that was in some kind of financial
| trouble. And it did that because it wanted to make even
| more money from some hedge fund somewhere, sure, but look
| at who was harmed (a hedge fund that was in the business
| of buying and selling Credit Default Swaps) and who
| benefited (a real company with a whole bunch of employees
| who would otherwise be laid off, and another hedge fund
| that was in the business of buying and selling Credit
| Default Swaps) and I'm not sure that the whole thing is
| that bad?
| criddell wrote:
| You're explaining how regulations come to be.
|
| Something happens that harms some party, the event is
| studied and regulations are sometimes updated.
| DANK_YACHT wrote:
| For options trading, there is always a winning and losing
| side. Someone is always harmed.
| ksaxena wrote:
| No. Options also provide a fundamental service -
| insurance. So, in the case where the option buyer is
| paying for insurance, sellers add value by underwriting
| the risk that is being insured. Hence, both the buyer and
| the seller win - the buyer gets insurance, the seller
| gets cash.
| Jenk wrote:
| ... and the insurance underwriters lose, upping their
| fees the next time around, so future insurance customers
| lose out, too.
| lordnacho wrote:
| Ex options trader here. You can sell me an option and we
| both make money:
|
| Let's say the option expires worthless. You make money
| having done nothing but collect my premium.
|
| I take the option, and because it's positive gamma, when
| it goes up I make money, and I flatten. When it goes
| down, I'm short, and I make money and buy. I keep doing
| this buying low and selling high until I've made more
| than the premium.
|
| ---EDIT
|
| My point is there can be reasons for both sides to do the
| trade. Nobody needs to be "harmed". The line of reasoning
| that says one of you must lose misses the point. If you
| buy insurance, either your house burns down or it
| doesn't. That doesn't mean either you or the insurance
| company was harmed.
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| You are comparing one side of one trade to the other side
| of many trades.
|
| Each individual options trade is zero-sum (one side wins
| exactly as much as the other side loses, barring
| transaction fees), as is the total of all options trades.
| lordnacho wrote:
| > You are comparing one side of one trade to the other
| side of many trades.
|
| The whole point of having financial instruments is that
| you can mix risks. Whether each individual one results in
| heads or tails is not actually the point, the point is
| entities can shape the risks they want to be exposed to.
| DANK_YACHT wrote:
| I'm not saying that if you buy an option that ends up OTM
| that you'll globally lose money, but in the context of
| that one specific trade you lost. Perhaps you're willing
| to take that loss in order to achieve some other goal,
| but my statement was about a single contract, not a
| general collection of trades.
| [deleted]
| graeme wrote:
| You can go into regulated instruments with little research
| because they're regulated.
|
| I had friends in Luna. We all told them over and over it
| was a scam. They could not listen. "Dock your stuff at
| terra station, 20%, how are you not in crypto, look at my
| account size, here are ten explainer videos showing complex
| gamified mechanics for why I'm a savvy insider" etc
|
| I agree regulators dropped the ball, but also at some point
| people really are almost willfully blind to downsides. We
| even had the example of Iron and Titan which collapsed
| similar to Luna and UST.
| smt88 wrote:
| > _also at some point people really are almost willfully
| blind to downsides_
|
| I agree with you, but in societies with the concept of
| bankruptcy, compulsory healthcare, etc., we all bear the
| burden of their willful blindness.
|
| That's why it should be a supply-side solution: people
| shouldn't be able to sell dangerous/scammy/faulty
| products at all, because there will always be suckers
| that the rest of us have to prop up when they launch
| themselves into poverty,
| TylerE wrote:
| I'm convinced no one really believes any of this shit is
| legit.
|
| They just think they're smart enough that THEY aren't on
| the bottom layer of the pyramid.
| dudus wrote:
| I can attest that's not the case. A lot of people think
| they found a really good investment and it would be a bad
| move to not massively invest in it.
| ksaxena wrote:
| The example of Olympus DAO as well
| puranjay wrote:
| Same. I knew acquaintances who worked in very well paid
| positions in some of the world's top companies, including
| investment banks, and they all were so smitten by this
| new shiny thing that they forgot to do their basic
| dilligence.
|
| I tried to warn them to treat it as a "gotta check on it
| thrice a day" investment and not a "set it and forget it"
| investment but they were all lured in by the LUNA
| "community" and basic greed.
| seabird wrote:
| There comes a point where you have to ascribe some level of
| responsibility to the investor. Cryptocurrency is massively
| ridiculed for scams like this, to the extent that it's hard
| to feign ignorance of it. I'm not saying that the scams
| should be allowed, but telling people to take even the
| smallest of steps to protect themselves is not victim
| blaming. People not understanding a 401k or mutual funds
| isn't a reason for them to not do due diligence.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| USDT was _far_ more stable and secure than any typical
| scam, so we 're well past the "smallest steps to protect
| [yourself]" line here. "The currency might collapse in on
| itself"? Yes, that's a valid concern. But, "Do Kwon might
| steal your money." is not a reasonable thing to expect
| people to be concerned about.
| criddell wrote:
| Some cryptocurrency company is advertised on the shirts
| of baseball umpires. Matt Damon does a commercial for
| some crypto company. It's everywhere!
|
| If you watch cable news you will see a commercial for a
| crypto company followed by a Vanguard commercial followed
| by a Fidelity commercial. In the wider world it is not
| massively ridiculed and is presented in the same way that
| more traditional investment companies are.
| [deleted]
| munificent wrote:
| _> Cryptocurrency is massively ridiculed for scams like
| this_
|
| This is true in the social bubbles you and I likely
| occupy but very much not (yet) true elsewhere.
|
| I have had many conversations with friends and family
| that are outside of tech asking my what crypto is and if
| it's something they should invest in because all they see
| right now is the hype, excitement, and ads from crypto
| companies.
| yebyen wrote:
| > all they see right now is the hype, excitement, and ads
|
| I think this should really answer the question, and I
| don't quite understand how anyone can be self-aware
| enough to recognize these things without also connecting
| the dots that "companies which do those things to promote
| their products are not generally trustworthy at-large"
|
| I know this phenomenon all too well though. It's the
| classic formula. "Generally Well-Understood Thing" is
| familiar to lots of people without need for any special
| qualification or training to understand the thing across
| a fairly wide range of functional parameters. "Generally
| Well-Understood Thing, but On The Internet" on the other
| hand is a completely new animal with all old assumptions
| required to be re-examined for a new understanding from
| first principles, assume we know nothing.
|
| The understanding is tried, too many foreign concepts
| enter the discussion, often the desire to understand "how
| this is different" results in an under-founded belief or
| assumption that adding the internet DOES in fact somehow
| make this thing different than it was before, end with a
| newly emergent confusion overarching the whole and 9/10
| times no further understanding is gained and no
| connection between the two ideas of "thing" and "thing on
| the internet" is retained.
| Seriomino wrote:
| There was an interview on the radio with a woman who can
| see in the future.
|
| As long as media is somehow seen as normal and people
| don't question e everything, you need consumer protection
| laws.
|
| It's that easy.
| timcavel wrote:
| nilsbunger wrote:
| I'm ok with there being a "poorly regulated" corner of
| finance in crypto, if individuals receive sufficient
| warnings that they don't have the same protections as with
| normal financial products, and may not even have recourse
| for fraud if the promoters are international or anon.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| The victims are the developers and users of Defi products
| caught in the contagion. Such as when a developer hardcoded
| TerraUSD deposits as equalling 1 and the whole project gets
| arbitraged out of existence due to the mispricing.
|
| Gullible buyers of TerraUSD (pre-crash) directly don't
| share this courtesy.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _Most people couldn 't tell you how a 401k works or even
| how a mutual fund works._
|
| If you don't understand how a mutual fund works, you have
| _no business_ investing in some obscure "stablecoin".
|
| But let's be real: 99.9% of the "victims" were trying to
| get-rich-quick themselves. Many are gambling again on Luna
| 2.0 right now. Caveat emptor.
| chasebank wrote:
| Interesting you're getting downvoted. You're completely
| right. It's not 99% of "victims", it's most definitely
| 100% were trying to get-rick-quick.
| zarathustreal wrote:
| Being a victim and being responsible for one's own actions
| are not mutually exclusive. Like all things, this is not
| black and white but nuanced.
| infecto wrote:
| I wanted to counter point some of the responders to this
| post but figured I would add support here instead.
|
| Yes, people are to blame but I think history has shown us
| that the masses are easy to fall for these kinds of games
| over and over. It is the reason we have regulation and
| while yes, these people are to blame, I think the bigger
| fault is on the government for allowing it to happen. These
| instruments are scams in the guise of valid financial
| instruments.
| zarathustreal wrote:
| I think it's important to note that this framing is not
| moralistic. In general, objective facts will share the same
| property of amorality.
| naikrovek wrote:
| all these high-quality individuals keep emerging out of the realm
| of cryptocurrency.
|
| I mean this is proof that these things are 100% above board! no
| bad actors here!
| WinstonSmith84 wrote:
| So, these guys were controlling tens of billions worth of dollars
| and as all failed they end up laundering 4.8M? It's either beyond
| desperation or maybe it's not what the author thinks it is.
| upupandup wrote:
| The actual order books are magnitude less than the stated
| market cap. For instance, somebody who is a billionaire on
| paper with mostly crypto holdings, cannot cash out most of its
| wealth.
|
| When prices drop, the order books run into liquidity issues. It
| tells me on thing though, that most people have shunned crypto
| and that most of the noise we see is people holding crypto
| spamming to get somebody to take the otherside of their trade
| so they can liquidate their holdings...ironically to fiat which
| was the pinnacle of their narrative.
| abacadaba wrote:
| they were able to sell 3 billion in btc and it got soaked up
| without the price dropping too much
|
| other than btc or maybe eth ya might be an issue though
| sushid wrote:
| It's because they didn't sell it directly on the market.
| They were sold to funds that would lock up the Lunas for 2
| years and so on. The Lunas were also sold at a discount
| (relative to the market price back then).
| IshKebab wrote:
| Didn't Musk buy and sell that much bitcoin fairly easily?
| altairprime wrote:
| It could be not the only transaction, just the first one to get
| caught.
|
| It could be the first of many transactions, and was caught.
|
| The disparity in size between a virtual cryptocoin's "value in
| USD" market assessment, and the actual dollar amount of a
| single financial transaction performed by that coin's operator,
| provides no significant information here for estimating the
| _total_ scope in USD of illicit behaviors by Terraform Labs.
| m00dy wrote:
| The market cap of Terra is about billions. It doesn't necessary
| mean the actual value they are controlling.
| anm89 wrote:
| I really hope Do Kwon ends up in prison for life.
| smt88 wrote:
| It seems to be the opposite. Major investors and exchanges are
| trying to legitimize him by supporting the Terra relaunch.
|
| It is absolutely amazing how crypto companies and enthusiasts
| can get scammed by someone and then go right back to trusting
| them, literally less than a month later.
|
| https://decrypt.co/101405/crypto-exchanges-including-binance...
| georgeecollins wrote:
| When people's beliefs are refuted they often double down on
| them. It's a phenomena that people have studied.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails
| pvarangot wrote:
| It's not trusting them as much as setting legal precedent so
| that they also don't end up in jail if there's a bank run on
| their tokens/chains.
| staticassertion wrote:
| If you're massively invested in crypto you need to pour a lot
| of money into legitimizing it and putting out fires wherever
| possible. Imagine you're running a scam on the street - let's
| imagine a dozen people playing "guess the card" (and
| cheating). Someone comes up and goes "woah, I saw that guy
| cheating, hey everyone this whole thing is a scam" - now you
| have two options, disavow that one guy and say "well the
| other card games are legit", or prop that scammer up and say
| "no no, that's just how the cards are played, it's a very
| complex system".
|
| The latter is appealing since it admits no fault in the
| system. If people generally see these card games as having a
| high potential for being a scam, you want to avoid that
| scrutiny even at a very high cost.
| TheGigaChad wrote:
| bdcravens wrote:
| I wonder if Hashicorp has gotten any blowback from confused Luna
| holders. Our company gets calls all the time from people thinking
| we are UPS or Fedex and wondering where their package is (we
| audit UPS/Fedex invoices)
| dudus wrote:
| I think my heart skipped a beat when I read the headline as I
| had just made an investment in $HCP. I was relieved after
| reading it's just another nail on Terra and not at all related
| to Hashicorp.
| chatmasta wrote:
| My heart has already skipped a few beats since I made an
| investment in $HCP in December! Still holding though. It's
| part of my "invest in what you use" portfolio, which is
| currently a basket of red tickers, being carried by a green
| $NET...
| caboteria wrote:
| My daughter occasionally works for a small gift shop in Dedham,
| MA called "Nest". She's gotten calls from people wanting tech
| support for Nest thermostats.
| ericbarrett wrote:
| I used to work for a storage startup named ONStor. Our front
| desk would get 3-4 calls a week from people trying to reach
| OnStar (https://www.onstar.com/).
| mikeryan wrote:
| My digital product design agency is called "A Different Engine"
| the number of cold emails and calls we get from car part
| distributors is amusing.
|
| The name source:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_engine
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Difference_Engine
| malisper wrote:
| > the number of cold emails and calls we get from car part
| distributors is amusing
|
| Heck, my company is called Freshpaint. The number of people
| that visit our site, freshpaint.io, see all the copy about
| data infrastructure, and still contact us looking for a quote
| to paint their house is hilarious.
| CSDude wrote:
| Is this why Cloudflare CEO bashing Hashicorp? /s
|
| Seriously though, what happened to that debate?
| kube-system wrote:
| Like most of the commenters here, it also confused me, so I'd
| imagine it confuses a lot of people.
|
| I also once worked at a company that had a name similar to a
| video game. Two seconds of looking at our website would have
| make it obvious that we were not related, but we got a lot of
| calls about it anyway. We got a laugh out of it when it
| happened.
| whizzter wrote:
| It might be fun for those kind of scenarios but as soon as
| money is involved you get more and more crazy people involved
| that can't distinguish things (esp in a scam rich environment
| as "crypto"-currencies).
| bdcravens wrote:
| We had one person actually come to our office wanting to
| find their package. We're a small company (in terms of
| headcount), and don't have a glamorous office. Not sure how
| anyone would mistake our location for Fedex, but
| nevertheless this person did. I was the only one here, and
| there was a serious language barrier. Took several times
| for me to explain to him he needed to call Fedex, and that
| his package wasn't hiding in our office somewhere.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-01 23:02 UTC)