[HN Gopher] How Logan Paul scammed people out of millions
___________________________________________________________________
How Logan Paul scammed people out of millions
Author : marban
Score : 279 points
Date : 2022-12-18 16:05 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| bambax wrote:
| > _People saw Logan as different_ (6th minute)
|
| Different how? Isn't he the guy who went all the way to Japan to
| film bodies of dead people in the so-called "suicide forest" just
| to have a big laugh about it?
|
| How likely is it that this kind of personality will take your
| money and laugh about it, and laugh about it more if it ends
| morbidly for you?
|
| I know it's wrong, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for
| people who give money to someone like that. I mean, I'm sorry
| they're hurt and I'm sorry they're broke, but they really really
| should have known better.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _I know it 's wrong_
|
| Provided you differentiate feeling sorry for the victims and
| wanting the perpetrators brought to justice, I don't think
| there's any real social obligation to feel sorry for victims.
| Wanting justice can be justified by considering the corrosive
| effect crimes have on society as a whole, even though the
| direct victims don't deserve sympathy. For instance, when
| gangsters massacre other gangsters, I don't feel sorry for the
| victims (who lived by the sword, then died by it) but this lack
| of empathy for the victims doesn't temper my desire to see the
| perpetrators brought to justice.
|
| The trap is when you don't care about the perpetrators facing
| justice because you think the victims deserved it. That's a bad
| path to go down.
| throw_away_8080 wrote:
| I like this.
|
| The value of retribution exists independently of the desire
| for revenge.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| There's gotta be a line between victim blaming and outright
| victim stupidity. I think these people who fell for these scams
| may be on the latter half of that line.
| agumonkey wrote:
| > victim blaming and outright victim stupidity.
|
| the last decade completely removed people foresight in
| negative outcomes. it's always the system or the other party
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| would you feel sorry for someone with mental disabilities that
| was scammed like this?
|
| If so, at what point on the spectrum of intelligence from
| medical disability to childhood neglect, to growing up within
| an environment of anti-intellectualism to an environment where
| you're encouraged to blindly follow (such as some religious
| communities) to those that just offered blithe trust in
| something that is so big that they fell into herd mentality?
| bambax wrote:
| It's a good and fair question. But if you watch the entirety
| of the video, which features interviews of the victims, you
| will see that those people are 1/ certainly not mentally
| impaired 2/ not "stupid" either (as in, people who couldn't
| understand a question or articulate a clear answer).
|
| I personally have a strong aversion to gurus of any kind, to
| a point that it's more a flaw than a strength. I don't expect
| other people to be the same, and I understand (or at least I
| think I do) the appeal of role models.
|
| But to fall for a man like Logan Paul, who is not just
| hollow, but obviously mean and a pathological liar...
| that's... inexplicable; and the only explication I can find
| is that these normal, non-stupid people were overcome by
| greed, and put their critical mind on hold (let alone their
| sense of morality).
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| I mention the spectrum. Just because they're not visibly
| drooling or don't have any obvious disabilities doesn't
| mean they're a entirely competent. Childhood neglect for
| example is an intersection rarely seen in a place like this
| because it barely intersects with the lives of most
| professionals who tend to come from more supportive
| backgrounds. However it still exists and I would argue is
| considerably more prevalent than you're possibly giving it
| credit for.
|
| To have absolutely zero empathy for people with
| considerably less fortunate backgrounds when they need our
| support the most demonstrates a dearth of compassion IMHO.
| vlunkr wrote:
| This part is baffling. The story has always been that Logan has
| a young, impressionable audience. These are grown men with a
| bunch of disposable income, and they're listening to the Logan
| Paul podcast and buying his crypto nonsense? Does not compute.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| herd mentality is an incredibly strong force as well as
| social proof. Logan Paul is so big that those without
| critical thinking may think its a safe bet.
|
| You should appreciate that the sort of critical thinking one
| might take for granted in a community such as this is
| arguably the exception in society as opposed to the rule.
| spuz wrote:
| > Different how?
|
| Different in that they believe he appeals to the greater fool.
| We know that despite his controversies, he still attracts a
| significant audience. Anyone looking to him sees that as a
| money making opportunity.
|
| Notice how all the early investors are more concerned about
| "when is Logan gonna market CryptoZoo" because that is how they
| make their initial investment back. Someone who was genuinely
| scammed would instead be talking about legal action.
| agumonkey wrote:
| Only my personal experience but at certain times I was in need
| to follow people in the light, whether shady or not, my brain
| was in a fog. Add the crypto get rich quick factor and people
| will just spend all their neurons into trying to guess where
| they will make the more money.
| [deleted]
| bmitc wrote:
| Is the system failing? How is this not all actionable from a
| standpoint of fraud, failure to pay / breaking contracts, and
| threats? Why are there no consequences for these people? Just
| like the influencer who intentionally crashed his plane.
|
| Paul and his manager are amazing in that they can't even form a
| complete sentence. They're just reaching for seemingly relevant
| words. It reminds me of Walter from _The Big Lebowski_ when
| talking about amphibious rodents being illegal within city
| premises.
|
| https://youtu.be/oovqYtMy1BI
| selimnairb wrote:
| Who is Logan Paul?
| jasonhansel wrote:
| A youtuber best known for monetizing the corpse of a suicide
| victim.
| raziel2701 wrote:
| I would also add that he's one of those people that benefit
| greatly from bad press. He's able to monetize the hatred. An
| article like this and the attention we pay him ultimately
| benefit him.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| "... left investors feeling like they'd been led on..."
|
| I don't doubt that these people really did think of themselves as
| investors. What a bunch of fucking idiots. They "invested" in
| video games loot from Logan fucking Paul.
| croes wrote:
| Is it just me or does Logan Paul sound like Trump in the
| beginning of the video?
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| you can trace this back to the Pentecostal movement. They sound
| the same because they're all grifters.
| darepublic wrote:
| The FTX scandal led me down YouTube's algorithmic path to
| coffeezilla and also cold fusion. Couple new subscriptions for
| me.
| [deleted]
| xwowsersx wrote:
| The thing that kind of amazed me is the interviews with seemingly
| normal people who were victims of this scam. A common thing they
| said was "well I assumed this was legit because it's Logan Paul
| behind it. I trust him." It's hard for me to fully understand the
| naivete inherent in falling for someone like Logan's act and
| thinking he's somehow trustworthy.
| knaik94 wrote:
| I imagine it comes from people's optimistic belief that trust
| can be rebuilt and bad people can be reformed. When a public
| figure was disgraced so openly, by the entire planet, any kind
| of comeback indirectly reflects a positive change. If they were
| bad people, it's hard to understand why they are still popular.
| I am not arguing that any of that logic is correct, just
| sympathizing why Logan Paul was given a second chance by a lot
| of these people.
| jmyeet wrote:
| It's never good to be a scammer. It's even worse when _you don 't
| need the money_. Logan Paul by any estimation is rich enough to
| never have to work another day in his life. Scamming money from
| people who aren't is a whole new level of scummy.
|
| Crypto, despite all the Crypto Andys extolling its still
| unrealized potential virtues, has shown itself to be a wonderful
| vehicle for scamming people. The only real application is
| bypassing laws. That's not inherently unethical (eg sending money
| to Venezuelan family members) but it's also great for scammers.
|
| The more interesting question is why do people keep falling for
| this? The answer is ultimately _despair_. There is a recognition
| by many people that their circumstances are dire and they will
| likely never be able to improve their socioeconomic status. You
| have people who spend decades paying off student debt. Others who
| are every day risk of medical bankruptcy. And many younger people
| feel permanently locked out of having any kinf of housing
| security.
|
| Despair is fertile ground for scammers as people feel like this
| is their only way out, the hopes for the next Bitcoin to make
| them wealthy. At what point do people realize that this is a
| systemic problem? It doesn't have to be this way, particularly in
| the wealthiest nation on Earth.
| babuloseo wrote:
| I was subscribed to Coffeezilla when he was like under 50k, it's
| really amazing to see the journey some of these people go through
| to get where they are today, we definitely need more people in
| this scene.
| phonescreen_man wrote:
| For me the question is, when they lost a little, why go on to
| lose a lot more? I guess the gamblers galaxy was at play. Logan
| Paul and his ilk are masters of marketing and manipulation.
| gnuvince wrote:
| I'm not an expert on this topic, so I'd like to know as well.
| My own personal theory is that most people, whatever their
| intelligence level, feel that they are smarter than the average
| person and their intelligence is part of their sense of
| identity. When people fall victim to a scam--when they are
| outwitted--that sense of identity takes a big hit and it's so
| hard to admit that they were not as smart as they thought they
| were, that they were wrong about _who_ they thought they were.
| And so rather than doing the rational thing which would be to
| admit being deceived and not seeing through it, they double-
| down, they want to find a way to make the scam work for them,
| to prove to others, but mostly themselves, that they were not
| dumb, that they were the smart ones.
| aswanson wrote:
| Bingo. That's why the friend that points out you've been
| scammed gets more vitriol than the conman. They've basically,
| in objective terms, called the mark stupid.
| drcode wrote:
| It's just the whole GameStop pump all over again: the people
| who lost money knew it was a scam, but were hoping they could
| sell when prices were still high
|
| Unfortunately for them, in this case it was so broken that not
| even the sales mechanism was functional, so they couldn't even
| dump the eggs straight out of the gate
| drowsspa wrote:
| I think there's some truth to the whole "It's hard to scam a
| honest man". At the very least people would wonder whom they're
| making money off from
| mathverse wrote:
| I dont understand how rich people like Logan Paul and Andrew Tate
| are.
|
| To put it in perspective there's a lot of startups with real
| useful products that have way less funding or revenue than people
| like this.
|
| How is this possible?
| bsaul wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if those people were actually faking
| everything, including their wealth. You can always rent a
| luxurious car for a photoshoot and pretend it's yours..
|
| My trust on anything happening on instagram or youtube has now
| reached 0
| mathverse wrote:
| I want to believe this because it would at least mean the
| reality is not really this grotesque.
|
| But to be honest (based on what some top Youtubers said about
| how underestimated is their public net worth) i think it's
| even more ridiculuous.
| jasonhansel wrote:
| The obvious answer would be: our current economic system is
| inherently inefficient in allocating resources.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Ultimately we exist in a society, a species even, that relies
| on persuading each other for support. Persuasion beats utility.
| Even very useful things often require persuasion to get people
| to use them.
| kube-system wrote:
| Humans also collectively generate more ideas and products in
| a single day than a single person could evaluate over their
| entire lifetime.
|
| Whether we realize it or not, no matter how DIY or
| independent we might be, we all rely on trust in others'
| specializations to live anything resembling a modern
| lifestyle.
|
| People are quick to judge those who have misplaced their
| trust as "dumb" but trust is quite a difficult thing to
| evaluate, particularly when information asymmetry is
| involved.
|
| People who fall for scams usually do so in a very rational
| way, given the trust networks they have built for themselves.
| curiousgal wrote:
| Same reason your coffee cup price can feed an entire family for
| a week elsewhere, the world is and has always been a shitty
| place.
| themagician wrote:
| A lot of "rich" people are broke.
|
| Plenty of people out there with way more debt than assets. But
| if you can put your liabilities out far enough you can live
| like that forever.
|
| You start with something modest, like $100,000 loan at 10-15%.
| You keep 75%. That's your starting salary and covers you for a
| whole year. You use 25% to work on a scam that will generate
| $1,000-$1,500 a month to pay back your loan. You are scamming
| such small amounts from the most desperate people so you'll
| never get caught or punished.
|
| You get better at it and keep repeating. You work your way up
| to borrowing $1,000,000. You keep $800k, and spend $200k on
| scams that can generate $10-$20k a month. Really not that much
| if you never plan on actually paying back the loan.
|
| Before you know it you're at $10 million. You're a
| multimillionaire now. You've "manifested" the life of your
| dreams. You've bought a house and cars and all sorts of stuff
| and your scam empire is now generating $100-200k a month. Your
| reach has grown and you are now attracting real ad revenue on
| top of scam money.
|
| These kinds people are always working on "projects" and
| "products". Whenever a project starts to look like it won't
| generate what's needed they literally just bail and refuse to
| pay anyone. And if anyone ever did go after them they wouldn't
| get anything, because these people are broke.
|
| You can live your entire life like this. You can live a great
| life with all the luxuries. What you can't do is stop. It's why
| these people never go away. People always say, "Why don't these
| people just retire?" The answer is because they can't. They may
| have a Bugatti, but the show must go on or it all goes away.
| Paying out $500k a month is not a big deal when you've got $20
| million of runway but you know the end of the runway exists.
|
| I remember an old video of Logan Paul, from way back in the
| Vine days where he says (paraphrasing), "I spend every moment
| of every day thinking about how to become more famous." His
| life is a 24/7 hustle. Even the videos where he appears to be
| "chillin" are carefully staged and curated.
|
| Ask yourself this: If you actually had a true NET worth of $50
| million would you really be wasting your time on nonsense
| podcasts and NFTs?
| DantesKite wrote:
| I haven't seen the entire video yet, but is there a chance for
| legal repercussions for Logan Paul? Or will he get away scot
| free?
| xyst wrote:
| Throw him and his cabal of sycophants in prison with Sam bank man
| fraud
| citizenpaul wrote:
| The world has gotten too good too fast in many places. Hugh
| sectors of the "economy" are effectively scams and fake jobs to
| the point it is near the norm rather than exception. Kids grown
| into adults now have seen it their whole lives, they have been
| ripped off themselves repeatedly. Millions have donated to
| charities that were supposedly reputable for years to later find
| out they were stealing or using the money for their own benifit.
| Why would they not think of getting in on a scam for their own
| benefit for once.
|
| I don't blame the victims. They did however join a game with
| their earned money with intent to make more. Its not like they
| chose to fund cancer research or something beneficial. I don't
| feel too bad for the victims in this case, more just that I
| really despise the way society seem to be irreversibly headed.
| codegeek wrote:
| "I don't blame the victims"
|
| I don't blame the victims as much as the scammers but I surely
| do put some blame on people too because Greed and/or
| desperation drives them to do things which are too good to be
| true. Most of us know better but still do it hoping it would
| pan out. There is no grift without grifters but there is no
| grift without gullible people as well.
|
| If you are giving some stranger money so that you can double it
| in a year without really understanding why, you should be
| blamed. My 2 cents.
| lordnacho wrote:
| Here's a story from when I first started trading.
|
| Back in those days brokers would fill up slow days with what
| they call good old cockney banter, shouted down the squawk
| box. Lots of BS and old fashioned attitudes, but they'd also
| spice it up with horse tips. This horse looks good for that
| race according to the stable boy, that kind of thing.
|
| Every damn time the rumour would be wrong and everyone would
| lose a bunch of money.
|
| So one day my boss decides to rebel. "Not losing another
| hundred quid to this BS, all you assholes can lose yours!".
|
| Fate being what it is, the horse comes in. 30x. People are
| going nuts, one after another showing up at our desk to look
| at the idiot who didn't bet.
|
| And this is how everyone who has sense still ends up doing
| things that aren't sensible.
| themagician wrote:
| I feel this so acutely and I often wonder how other people
| don't see this and it makes me want to scream.
|
| Almost everything new is some form of scam or scheme.
| Particular on social media (IG, TikTok, etc.) almost ever ad or
| sponsored post is a scam. I can imagine that growing up right
| now you must assume this is normal and just the way it is.
| astrange wrote:
| None of mine are. Though IG does keep trying to sell me
| Viagra.
| marban wrote:
| I wonder what went wrong in parenthood when kids have idols like
| this guy.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| I think that's a bit harsh. Logan Paul is a good looking, tall,
| charming dude. He's highly prolific on youtube, and is also a
| boxer and a pro-wrestler on the side.
|
| This is just what celebrity looks like in the 20s. I may find
| him distasteful too, but I am not the least bit surprised a lot
| of kids think he's cool and don't think it's some failure in
| parenting.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| I think it's because the concept of having a stable career that
| allows people to have a good life, family, house and retirement
| seems more and more out of reach for a lot of people. So get-
| rich-quick schemes appear the only way out. And after the 2008
| bailouts it became pretty clear that there are different rules
| for different people and it's ok to lie to people if you are
| just brazen enough.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| > And after the 2008 bailouts it became pretty clear that
| there are different rules for different people
|
| I think part of the problem lies here. We have this notion
| that there are those rich and powerful few, and there is the
| rest of us plebeians. Everyone wants to be the person that
| cracks the code and joins the ranks of the elite. All of a
| sudden that scammy crypto project looks like your ticket in
| and "all the haters just don't know".
|
| One of the best things I've learned looking at this crap for
| the past few years is there really are no shortcuts, and any
| shortcut that's getting sold to you is snake oil.
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| > And after the 2008 bailouts it became pretty clear that
| there are different rules for different people and it's ok to
| lie to people if you are just brazen enough.
|
| Sadly, I think this has been merely a general rule that each
| generation must learn for itself. It was pretty clear before
| 2008 as well.
|
| Every ancient civilization has some sort of trickster god,
| after all.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| I used to be a free market guy. 2008 definitely broke
| something in me. Suddenly it was clear that the preachers
| on Wall Street that talked about "creative destruction"
| didn't like that concept as much anymore when it came to
| them. And then I realized that the Fed and both parties
| only worried about the bankers and gave a sh.t about the
| little guy. COVID was the same. Rich got richer, poor got
| poorer. And inflation was blamed on the subsidies for the
| little guys but not on the massive money printing for the
| big guys. We are led by sociopaths .
| CSMastermind wrote:
| This feels a bit revisionist to me. There's a long and
| storied history of conmen, charlatans, and scam artists going
| back to at least thousands of years and probably to the dawn
| of human culture.
|
| I haven't seen any evidence yet that would lead me to believe
| the rate of scams are rising or that there's been a
| significant change in human behavior regarding this recently.
| RGamma wrote:
| SM is chock full of people like this. It is maddening.
| gloryjulio wrote:
| There was a youtube video they uploaded about the logan
| brothers and the father take turns to kiss a girl blindfolded.
| So the parenthood is exactly as how it's intended
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoF6Tajj4UM
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| everything went right. He's from the generation of rich kids
| that happened upon the internet when it was possible to impress
| even younger children and gain audience by flaunting elements
| of one's wealth.
|
| Post YouTube there was a huge gold rush of rich kids looking to
| be at the front of queue using their parents money to buy
| impressive production or stage outrageous stunts. Tragically
| these rich kids apparently missed out on the character
| development arc where they fail and better themselves as people
| before they succeed. That's why today many of them are grifters
| and scammers.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| Perception.
|
| People see a different world today. One where douchebags are
| rich, and people who work 9-5pm, and raise a family, are NPCs.
|
| Everyone trying to get rich off an image has to sell that story
| in order to make money. If the world thought having a stable
| job and a loving family was the epitome of cool, none of these
| cash-grabbing losers would have an audience, everyone would be
| busy doing something useful.
| JasserInicide wrote:
| There was no parenting at all
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Probably the same kinds of things that drive adults to be
| defrauded by religion-based grifts, especially through their
| television sets.
|
| These TV personalities are just a different flavour of that.
| You send them money to feel part of something and they line
| their pockets all the same.
| oifjsidjf wrote:
| This.
|
| Same mechanism, different medium.
| arcturus17 wrote:
| I'm an atheist, but I think that there's infinitely more
| value in Christian beliefs than whatever Logan Paul is
| preaching.
| justinator wrote:
| "Christian Beliefs" and, "The Actual Practices of
| Christians" are too very different things. There are have
| been many atrocities done over hundreds of years in the
| name of Christ.
|
| This guy just has a pretty (and punchable) face he's using
| to grift his idiot fans.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Indeed. I never meant to blanket all of religion, and
| amended my word use a few minutes ago. I mean the
| personalities who go on TV and ask for your money in the
| name of a god.
| doc_gunthrop wrote:
| You mean televangelists. Kenneth Copeland and Joel Osteen
| are two well-known ones.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| That's the word! Thanks.
| [deleted]
| maxbond wrote:
| Whatever generation you identify as, I'm positive it had plenty
| of people subscribing to celebrities and poor role models. This
| certainly isn't a problem if "people have forgotten how to
| parent".
| Gelob wrote:
| Nothing went wrong. You never watched something on tv when you
| were younger that your parents thought was filth and stupid?
| paulgb wrote:
| I did, but I fortunately didn't have $500k to "invest" in a
| game at the time.
| coldtea wrote:
| Yes. And that was a problem with parenthood back then too.
| marban wrote:
| No, I'm not aware of anyone getting scammed by He-Man.
| eli wrote:
| You clearly never ordered the products advertised in the
| back of the comics.
| aswanson wrote:
| I wanted that hovercraft kit so bad.
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| More than x-ray vision? _Real_ x-ray vision[0]?
|
| [0] Or so I was led to believe.
| doc_gunthrop wrote:
| But kids were being scammed by those 1-900 "call Santa"
| television commercials.
| iso1631 wrote:
| You benefited from strong regulations which covered
| television programming, and even stronger regulations about
| those aimed at kids.
|
| If NBC had broadcast scams in He-Man or Scooby Doo rather
| than the weekly moral messages they'd have been off air
| faster than you could blink.
|
| Regulation barely exists any more, except mainly to defend
| copyright owners.
| chowells wrote:
| He-Man _was_ the scam. The entire show was created
| specifically to sell toys to children. Before Reagan 's
| deregulation crusade in the early 80s, that was illegal.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| I mean its not a scam if you get a toy after you pay for
| it. The issue with this scam is none of these people got
| what they paid for.
| trimbo wrote:
| What was illegal? Disney was selling character stuff for
| decades prior. Star Wars toys were licensed by Lucas
| before that movie came out[1].
|
| [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenner_Star_Wars_acti
| on_figure...
| godzillabrennus wrote:
| If true that's yet another reason to celebrate Raegan.
| Better for kids to buy toys of men in leotards than the
| Johnny 5 all in one super weapon.
| feet wrote:
| What is the Johnny 5 all in one super weapon?
| justin_oaks wrote:
| I think the parent commenter meant the Johnny Seven O.M.A
| (One Man Army) toy:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Seven_OMA
| pixl97 wrote:
| Jonny Seven One Man Army.
|
| Legal Eagle did a video over dangerous toys recently and
| had this in it.
|
| https://youtu.be/UtT34FNuBf0
|
| At the 3:15 mark.
| godzillabrennus wrote:
| Jackass / CKY videos come to mind for my generation. Even Bum
| Fights.
|
| Shame what's happened to Bam Margera.
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| > Shame what's happened to Bam Margera
|
| Considering how much he's refused support, this was
| predicted for years. It's all on him.
| brookst wrote:
| I'm always curious why people think that blame has
| something to do with compassion. They're entirely
| orthogonal. If you only have compassion for the
| blameless, you may not be doing it right.
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| Why should anyone feel sorry for him? He's 40 yrs old and
| lost, he had the time and resources.
|
| I don't feel sorry for someone who throws away that many
| chances.
| AntoniusBlock wrote:
| Bam Margera looks like he could star on Bum Fights as a
| bum. They could call it Bam Fights.
| aphroz wrote:
| Another Coffeezilla case? He will soon be able to build a real
| 10M studio.
| valdiorn wrote:
| This man needs a proper budget and press credentials. He should
| be in the running for a Pulitzer at this point.
| LegitShady wrote:
| press credentials do not appear in the constitution. they are
| just press assocation members recognizing themselves. your
| right to freedom of press is not contingent on having press
| credentials.
|
| i think coffeezilla is doing well with what he has right now
| ajd i dont known if big budget and fake recognition mean more
| than the grassroots recognition he actually gets without
| those things.
| maxbond wrote:
| I feel like that would destroy him honestly. Kind of like how
| after SoftBank gave Adam Neumann $1B and told him to "get
| crazy," he succumbed to his worst instincts.
|
| Not to say Coffeezilla is a grifter, but I think Coffeezilla
| is thriving in part due to his constraints. If he had a huge
| budget and resources, he wouldn't be an agile nobody who
| could convince anyone to get on the phone and tell on
| themselves. He'd be just another news outlet, with too much
| to lose to act in the way he's used to.
| jerrygenser wrote:
| I would hope he doesn't get too big or he'll have too much to
| lose and not be able to do the work he does.
|
| He hinted at this in his podcast with lex Friedman. He also
| mentioned another forcing function would be when he has kids
| he needs to reconsider he's journalistic risk.
| raphlinus wrote:
| Coffee's recent interview on the Lex Fridman podcast gives more
| background to these investigations, and specifically why you're
| not seeing them in mainstream media. Basically, Coffee is taking
| a _lot_ of risk, as the scammers apply a lot of pressure,
| including legal threats and not so legal threats, to suppress
| knowledge of their wrongdoing. Mainstream media tends to give in
| to these threats, but Coffee is in a somewhat unique position of
| being able to take them on.
|
| I've lately become slightly addicted. The production style is
| appealing, and the stories compelling. The fact that people like
| Logan Paul are able to pull off these scams with little
| accountability says a lot about our modern times. I definitely
| recommend Coffeezilla.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| What position does Coffee have to not worry about these legal
| threats?
| richbell wrote:
| FTX is a good example: one of the investigative journalists
| he interviewed alleged that Bloomberg (I think, could be
| misremembering) refused to publish his articles critical of
| FTX because FTX was buying a lot of ads on their platform.
|
| There was also a journalist who uncovered substantial
| evidence linking the Royal Family and Jeffrey Epstein years
| ago. She was pressured to drop the story, in part because of
| potential financial and reputational repercussions to the
| place she was working.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| This sort of thing seems to happen around the British royal
| family a lot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_se
| xual_abuse_scan...
| _zoltan_ wrote:
| being a liquid beverage, I assume. otherwise I have no idea
| what coffee is.
| faeriechangling wrote:
| His argument is that major outlets have more to lose than he
| does.
|
| If Coffeezilla goes down, then crypto scams won't be
| investigated anymore, but the investigations also have little
| point without naming and shaming, so the risk is essential to
| the very purpose of what he is doing.
|
| Whereas with the New York Times, if reporting about crypto
| scams lands them in enough legal trouble to make them
| unprofitable, the implications can be beyond investigations
| into crypto scams, it can undermine investigations into
| pretty much any aspect of society. They have more to lose and
| thus are naturally more risk adverse.
| comex wrote:
| The thing is that these legal threats are usually empty, as
| far as the chances go of actually winning. There might be
| more cause for the concern in the UK or other countries,
| but in the US it's very hard for a public figure to win a
| libel suit, even if the reporting is sloppy, or even if the
| reporting contains substantial false information, as long
| as it wasn't done on purpose. That was established in _New
| York Times Co. v. Sullivan_.
|
| If the reporter is unlikely to have to hand money over via
| a judgement or settlement, that leaves the cost of hiring
| lawyers to defend the case. For an individual, that cost
| can still be ruinous, which is why so-called SLAPP suits
| really are a big problem. But an organization like the New
| York Times gets sued all the time. They have in-house
| counsel and paying them is part of the cost of doing
| business.
|
| In theory, the cost of defending more libel suits could
| still be problematic in aggregate. But the proof is in the
| pudding. The New York Times is constantly publishing
| negative articles about all sorts of people. Just looking
| at the front page and limiting to investigative reporting
| (not coverage of specific news events, and not editorials)
| of targets that could theoretically sue (not e.g. Putin):
| today there's an article on the owner of 4chan; yesterday
| there was one on Trump; the day before, one on a large
| hospital chain (which "spent years cutting jobs, leaving it
| flat-footed when the pandemic hit"); the day before that,
| an article naming several extremists attending a Young
| Republican Club event. And of course there are many other
| articles that people could take offense to; Sarah Palin
| recently lost a libel case against the NYT for a 2017
| editorial.
| wyldfire wrote:
| > Mainstream media tends to give in to these threats,
|
| Not sure which parts of the mainstream media you're referring
| to but certainly not traditional (legacy?) print media like
| NYT/WaPo.
|
| Maybe just maybe it's not interesting to big outlets because
| influencers like Paul have less influence overall than is
| apparent to the subcultures who follow them.
|
| NYT on Paul [1].
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/technology/crypto-
| influen...
| _fat_santa wrote:
| The difference is breaking the story vs reporting on it after
| it has been broken. Had Coffee not put out his video series,
| NYT would have likely not been compelled to write a piece
| about it
| jrumbut wrote:
| I haven't followed this but I will take anyone's word for
| it that Coffee did break the story and cause the NYT to
| take notice, and that was great work.
|
| I think the objection is to the image of major media
| outlets living in fear of the Paul brothers. They regularly
| publish negative stories on people with much better
| lawyers, more influence, and scarier extralegal muscle.
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| Maybe they once did, but no longer. If they did, they'd
| cover the laptop story or the sketchiness with Burisma.
| Those are conveniently ignored for articles about
| diversity in knitting communities [0]. Journalism is dead
| outside of a few remaining gumshoes.
|
| 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/style/ravelry-
| knitting-ba...
| hitekker wrote:
| Perhaps the risk/benefit ratio explains it better. The
| NYTimes could break a story that _could_ undermine future
| access to an influential group of elites and that _could_
| be not factual and invite pesky questions, in exchange
| for a potentially, considerable boost in reputation. Or
| they could play it safe, wait for someone else to take
| the plunge, and then follow after, with a negligible
| increase in their reputation.
|
| When an organization has already taken on considerable
| risk on multiple fronts, they become much more
| conservative. I'd wager it's not fear of the Paul
| Brothers, it's a limited appetite for risk. Also,
| mitigating risk since it takes time to investigate a
| signal and turn it into a story; which the NYTimes seemed
| content to offload onto Coffee.
| kodah wrote:
| I can't begin to understand what the perspective of someone who
| holds value in their head for NFTs is. Are they grifters
| themselves in an Amway kind of deal? Is there some actual use
| that I'm just totally missing?
| xmonkee wrote:
| yes, everyone i know who's into nfts is in it for short term
| hype-riding profits. Its grifters all the way down
| cmckn wrote:
| I guess the charitable take is they're just collectibles. As
| someone who has a moderate interest in collecting physical
| things (such as vinyl records) it's hard to understand why
| anyone would enjoy "collecting" an entry in a data structure.
| [deleted]
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Collection of products manufactured with the intent of being
| collectables is another thing I can't wrap my mind around.
| Intentionally rare baseball/pokemon/magic trading cards,
| beanie babies, funko pops... I just don't get it.
|
| If you're going to collect something, doesn't it seem more
| authentic to collect something that was never meant to be
| collectable but became that way as the passage of time
| attrited that thing? Things which became collectable
| organically, rather than being manufactured with the intent
| of being collectable, stand a much better chance of retaining
| their value and seem intrinsically more interesting.
|
| I guess in some cases the line is blurred. Like stamp
| collecting, and the existence of limited-run stamps
| originally intended to entice stamp collectors.
| nerdponx wrote:
| I don't get it either, but I think I understand why people
| do.
|
| First is that collecting stuff can be fun. There's an
| element of the "thrill of the chase" tracking down
| individual items, and of discovering new things, and of
| completing a project of some kind. There's also sometimes
| an element of belonging to a community, The hobby of
| collecting becomes an activity in and or itself.
|
| Second is that it's not entirely about scarcity. Baseball
| cards are desirable because people like to follow sports
| and athletes and stats. Funko Pops are desirable because
| people like pop culture and want figurines of pop culture
| figures. Fine art is desirable because it ostensibly looks
| nice (or fits some other definition of "art"). Most NFTs
| are also "art" or otherwise visually interesting, and
| moreover represent some kind of techno-futuristic optimism
| that appeals to people.
|
| Of course, things get a little hairy once "real money" gets
| involved. There are orders of magnitude more money involved
| than, say, rare books or Magic: The Gathering cards, and
| the fact that everything is digital and highly liquid (in
| the financial sense) makes it all seem a lot more
| accessible. And of course that accessibility, coupled with
| the thing being poorly understood and widely hyped, makes
| it a uniquely tempting arena for scams and financial
| speculation.
| aardvarkr wrote:
| Collective mania is a thing. Why do you want that rare
| Pokemon card? Because all of your other friends play
| Pokemon and they want it too so it has value to you even
| though it's literally just a piece of paper with a cool
| graphic and happens to be artificially scarce.
|
| NFT's are the exact same thing but instead of it being your
| school friends that are jealous and obsessed over your rare
| thing, now it's a discord community of 10k+ that are going
| nuts over a golden jpeg. Every NFT project has to have a
| strong community that is incredibly excited about that
| artificially scarce collectible.
|
| I've participated in NFT mintings and it really opened my
| eyes. They make 10,000 of these randomly generated images
| and sell them to a rabid community of speculators who are
| willing to throw hundred if not thousands of dollars at
| their chance to strike it rich.
| nickhalfasleep wrote:
| I think for many people, they do not understand exactly how
| people make money on investments, and how they are supposed to
| feed back into the economy. Everybody wants 100x returns like
| the early internet produced from communication changes. But it
| is actually rare event.
| richbell wrote:
| "Line Goes Up" is a long but excellent video about NFTs and the
| people involved with then.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g
| _fat_santa wrote:
| The one application of NFT's that I really like is
| CryptoKitties. Basically you can buy some NFT's and then
| "breed" them to mint new NFT's.
|
| The problem with that project and really all NFT projects is
| that they are way to expensive. If a CryptoKitty could be had
| for $5-10 then it would be a fun game, but when each NFT runs
| you into the hundreds and thousands of dollars, it stops being
| a game and starts being an investment vehicle.
|
| It would be like if Magic the Gathering sold individual cards
| for $150 and to build an entire deck you would need about $10k.
| If that were the case, MTG would not be a popular game and
| everyone in it wouldn't be in it for the game, they would just
| hope their cards go up in value.
|
| TL;DR - NFT's can be a great thing, the prices just need to
| come back down to earth.
| freejazz wrote:
| Cyrptokitties are worth "hundreds and thousands of dollars"
| because they are being used to launder money. There is no
| other reason.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| TL; DW? (Feel like this is a fair ask for video.)
| greenthrow wrote:
| You can watch at 1.5-2x speed and you really don't have to
| watch, just listen.
| barnabask wrote:
| https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=386p68_lDHA
| staindk wrote:
| This is cool!
|
| BTW for anyone else interested - you can hit "show
| transcript" on any YT vid (with CC I'm guessing) - and follow
| along with the video and/or CTRL + F to find mentions of
| things.
|
| On most screens "show transcript" will probably be hidden
| behind the triple dot menu to the right of the like/dislike
| buttons.
| LeoNatan25 wrote:
| The TL;DW is that people are stupid, and they do what
| "influencer" clowns tell them to do, with zero critical
| thought.
| smcl wrote:
| This was exactly my thought. I have no idea how adults are
| following Logan Paul and dropping tens of thousands of
| dollars on his obvious crypto grift. I cannot wrap my head
| around it, I thought his audience was young, impressionable
| zoomers.
|
| It wasn't even his first crypto scam! He'd already run thru
| the same thing with "Dink Doink" (which iirc Coffee mentions
| in the video). It's incredible.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Highly likely that a substantial portion of the victims,
| maybe even the majority, knew it was a rug-pull scam but
| thought they could get in, make a profit and get out before
| everybody else got screwed.
| smcl wrote:
| That's definitely a possibility. If so, very expensive
| lesson to learn.
| wpietri wrote:
| There's an old line that you can't cheat an honest man.
| It's not always true, of course. But one of the most
| reliable source of marks is people who are looking to get
| something for nothing.
| spamizbad wrote:
| Many of the cons run on "Better Call Saul" rely on this
| premise.
| yummypaint wrote:
| Yeah i wonder about this too. I think the popular
| perception is that his followers are particularly young
| and impressionable, so if the actual investors in the
| scam tended to be older it lends weight to that idea.
| There is an old saying that "you can't con an honest
| man."
| runarberg wrote:
| I think this view is giving a free pass to the malicious
| psychological manipulation involved by the scammers, in other
| words, victim blaming.
|
| Anyone can be a victim of a scam, and nobody is at fault for
| falling for a scam except the scammers and the lax law
| enforcement around it.
| LeoNatan25 wrote:
| I agree, but there are different levels of scam, and this
| isn't a particularly complex one. Very little was required
| from the conned to figure out it's a scam; e.g., the
| involvement of the "NFT" concept.
| tromp wrote:
| People dropped millions on tokens based on a celebrity's
| promise of those tokens being useful in a future fun game that
| lets you earn money. I guess the game never materialized.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Oh, so securities fraud. Have complaints been filed with the
| states' securities regulators?
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| I hope the SEC wakes up. The amount of scams I saw on
| Fintwit and Cryto Twitter in 2020-22 were absurd
| dmix wrote:
| This one is still only a year old roughly. SEC gears will
| probably start moving soon.
|
| This one is pretty blatant and very public.
| ProAm wrote:
| npm install <topic I want to be an expert at without any of the
| work to become knowledgeable>
|
| Seriously these are things that cause projects like crypto and
| nft's to get any ground, no one does the research, everyone
| waits for someone else to tell them what the point is, how it
| works, why its valuable or not.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| TL;DW: Securities fraud.
| richbell wrote:
| Logan Paul starts heavily promlting an NFT project. He claims
| that he's super passionate about it and has spent 1M of his own
| money into it, presumably to signal that it isn't a rug-pull
| scam like all his previous rug-pull scams. People put millions
| into it before it even launches, only for it to launch in a
| completely broken state and instantly lose value. It's clear
| that all the claims Logan was making to hype the project
| weren't true. Coffeezilla, attempting to figure out what
| happened, reaches out to the devs who claim they weren't paid,
| then reaches out to Logan's manager who refuses to comment and
| makes thinly veiled threats of legal action of Coffee reports
| on any of this.
|
| Logan proceeds to never bring it up again and starts building
| hype for another project that totally won't be a scam. Rinse
| and repeat.
| thinking4real wrote:
| Maybe there's some Darwinian forces at play here.
|
| Afaik, Logan is just some internet moron. He has no
| credentials or life accomplishments, he's just a pretty face
| with an attractive personality.
|
| So if that's who you're going to trust to invest your money,
| maybe it's good you don't have as much money. Maybe that's
| something that will actually improve our species.
|
| Add in that these people who threw away all this money are
| happy to come in and laugh about it on camera (how did
| society get to this point where submitting your humiliation
| is normal?)... like what are we really upset about here? That
| losers are losers and they're being taken advantage of?
|
| That's life. Maybe if people weren't so insulated from their
| consequences they'd be raised to actually see these things
| from a mile away.
| brookst wrote:
| If you want to see it that way, doesn't that mean "maybe
| it's better" if fraudsters accumulate wealth with impunity?
|
| Perhaps we should incentivize crime and fraud, since the
| victims are by definition less fit, and the attackers are
| by definition more fit?
|
| I am not sure I care for this philosophy. It is timely
| though, I'll give you that.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _doesn't that mean "maybe it's better" if fraudsters
| accumulate wealth with impunity?_
|
| It's an argument against using public resources to pursue
| him. The victims could sue him for money damages, and in
| the process arrange the facts such that a prosecutor can
| jump off them versus launching an independent probe.
| ww-picard-do wrote:
| So, justice should be a privilege only to those who can
| afford lawyers?
| webkike wrote:
| Problem is they're giving their money to someone who is
| equally stupid
| thinking4real wrote:
| That's not a problem and it's bizarre seeing all these
| comments repeating the same message.
|
| Our economic systems were not designed nor ever intended
| to be a system where good or moral people prevail the
| most.
|
| But in this age I'm not the least bit surprised that
| people will go to that great extent of mental gymnastics
| to for the satisfaction of "getting" someone they see as
| a villain.
| [deleted]
| billsnow wrote:
| Why would it be beneficial for society to filter out people
| who make poor business decisions? Many of the greatest
| generals, politicians, scientists, and artists in history
| were terrible at business and fell for scams many times.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| > Afaik, Logan is just some internet moron. He has no
| credentials or life accomplishments, he's just a pretty
| face with an attractive personality.
|
| Yes, combined with what appears to be significant
| narcissism with malignant tendencies. He's so shameless
| though that it somehow convinces people who want to love
| him that his malignancy isn't that bad. In fact, maybe it's
| funny! Maybe it's cool. Just keep watching, I guess.
|
| I don't want him to profit off of other people, I don't
| want people to be scammed by him, and I think the situation
| is awful. But it's nothing new. People like him are
| uncommon, but not totally rare and their impact is broad.
| We should all practice far better awareness of this.
|
| Having said that, I don't agree that Darwinism and
| economics should necessarily be overlapped this way. The
| Venn diagram would seem to have some overlap, but people
| are worth much more than what they happen to accomplish
| financially. This is just a narrow aspect of what it is to
| be human, and largely mediated by nebulous things which
| arguably can't determine one's worth from a personal or
| evolutionary perspective.
| imperialdrive wrote:
| Just want to say, thank you, for capturing so much wisdom
| and distilling it into a well written summary/reply.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| That's very kind of you to say. Thank you! I think of
| most of the words I dump onto the internet as incoherent
| rambling so it's relieving and even gratifying if someone
| finds a signal in the noise.
| jrumbut wrote:
| > The Venn diagram would seem to have some overlap, but
| people are worth much more than what they happen to
| accomplish financially.
|
| Beyond that, the money lost by those who were conned is
| being gained by a con artist who will presumably use it
| to create more and better cons.
|
| Eventually one of them might be good enough to rope in
| someone you care about or big enough to cause widespread
| damage.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| I watched the video the other day when it came out and he
| interviewed several people that invested between 10k and
| 500k into the project. Seems like all those folks got taken
| up by the hype but the part I just can't wrap my head
| around is even then, how do you just dump that much money
| into something without any due diligence.
|
| All the "due dillegence" that these guys seemed to have
| done is: "well Logan is rich and famous so this must be
| legit". I would have a hard time investing $50 of my own
| money just based off that, I don't know how you can
| convince yourself that investing thousands into this one
| crypto project is a good idea.
| rightbyte wrote:
| > how do you just dump that much money into something
| without any due diligence.
|
| They believe they are scammers too, not the victims?
| eldenwrong wrote:
| Side effects of easy monetary policy and low education of
| the wealthiest population in the world.
| bobbob1921 wrote:
| I agree with all of this, my only guess as to how some of
| these people could dump that much money into something
| without any due diligence, is perhaps their source of the
| investment was other crypto gains so it didn't seem like
| real money in the first place. (Ie was not money they
| actually work for/earned nor ever had in their "fiat bank
| account", so it all seemed fake/like Monopoly money.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Did they invest that much, or are they conspirators
| saying that they invested that much in order to convince
| other people to invest that much?
| Volundr wrote:
| > So if that's who you're going to trust to invest your
| money, maybe it's good you don't have as much money. Maybe
| that's something that will actually improve our species.
|
| That money doesn't just up and vanish though. It's now in
| the hands of an actively malicious person instead of
| someone who just makes poor decisions, and our society is
| structured such that that money gives the malicious person
| more legitimatcy and power, increasing the harm they can
| do. I can't see how society is better off that way.
| codegeek wrote:
| TL;DR: promotes an NFT project.
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| Oh wow who could have possibly predicted that putting 500k into
| PonziZoo would result in the owner stealing all your money. It's
| clearly such a sensible investment.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-18 23:02 UTC)