FTC

moemonies1

Damn. Am sorry that happened to you man. The best you can do is contact and file a report with the FTC. Go here [https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/#/](https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/#/) This is the FTC official website. Report fraud and get in touch with them. The officers may be able to help and have the resources to go after these scammers. You need to do this. They can track the BTC. Make sure you have their btc address and give them all the information needed. Do not divulge personal information to anyone. Officers from FTC will not make you divulge information that can compromise you further. Contact the FTC right now so they can start investigating

courtrye

There is so much to consider when it comes to grayscale. Before the ETFs were launched, there was actually a discount on their stock when compared with self custody bitcoin. It was kind of a bet whether ETFs would come at all, and grayscale initiated the lawsuits against the FTC which led to the approval of ETFs in general. “the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the SEC's denial of Grayscale Investment's application to convert the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) into an ETF was invalid and must be reviewed, calling it an “arbitrary and capricious” rejection.” We are all really fortunate, and grayscale should be positively recognized for their efforts on this lawsuit. That probably cost them a lot of money, and they are a business trying to maximize profitability, so they just picked the management fee for GBTC that would net them the most ongoing fees. Going from 2% all the way down to 0.25% is a huge drop. They would probably still make more with a third of the customers paying 1.5% compared to all of the original customers paying 0.25%. I don’t want to do the math here, but you can find the brake even point. They picked a number, have seen some customer attrition, and are now launching that many trust to try to catch new people or those who are switching out of GTC and taking that capital gains hit.

0DTEx

Break even is bottom in bear markets so this is really good info to know. If for whatever reason the price of bitcoin gets near breakeven post halving it’s probably a really good time to buy. Knowing this info got me buying 18-15k as breakeven was 13k around the time of FTC collapse.

jadequarter

nexon is a bunch of scammers. they've rigged gacha odds for a decade and korea FTC caught them and fined them $9m imagine thinking the odds for getting X item is a coded %. nope, nexon uses an algorithm and reduces or increases the odds based on factors that were unknown to you, as mentioned here: https://i.imgur.com/75WeIzc.jpg https://np.reddit.com/r/Maplestory/comments/1ab92kc/suit_against_nexon_co_ltd_has_been_filed/ cant believe avalanche would partner with scammers lmao

HSuke

It's actually harder than you think because it's super easy to detect and block. The FTC is already fining and threatening to ban companies that don't verify numbers and allow spam. Every SIP trunk has a list of DIDs or DID ranges expected from that trunk. Legit telcos will simply block numbers outside of the expected DID range. What's easier than faking a number is just buying a real VoIP number

Head_Pie4518

Thank you so much, we did also file a report with the FTC already ❤️

ilillilillilillilili

Sorry to hear your elderly parents were taken advantage of. Its disgusting that thieves latch on to any buzzwords to get the vulnerable to hand over money of any sort. Unfortunately, crypto is made to work securely with good and bad actors and once a transaction is confirmed, its 100% permanent. Definitely help your parents submit an official report of some kind. Best I can come up with off-hand is the FTC. https://reportfraud.ftc.gov At the very least: it may warn others from being taken by the same actors. Best of luck to you!

Number_United

Imagine selling your company and then buying it back again for 10% what you were paid. FTC made alot of people money.

Jenn2895

Look up FTC stats on crypto scams. Then consider how many people don't report they were scammed.

SOCOPOPO

The two big ones I can see is savings/finance. As tps is going through the roof to be able to cover credit services to match Visa and Mastercard’s tps, I could see crypto taking over that market. Secondly the thing I thought about is companies could move their “stocks” to the block chain. Instead of buying a stock from an exchange and waiting 2 days to settle, they could move all stocks to a stock “coin.” This will be tough with the SEC and FTC and every other gov’t entity, but you could sell fractional shares with no market close, and settlement could be 2 seconds instead of 2 days.

Regular_Chapter_788

Looks like you got scammed >Scam Scam. Look up their address, it will show you. 7 Laurier Rd, London, England, NW5. Just a residential townhouse, not a business. Their business license expires in November this year, registered as an advertising agency. Fraud alert. FTC has been reported to as well. Not playing any games with these clowns. >Date of experience: 04 February 2024 >Absolute scam bags Absolute scam bags, don’t even deserve the 1star. No withdrawals no feedback from scam hunter. Do not invest, all the people leaving good comments are getting paid to leave them… I say again people “DO NOT GIVE YOIR MONEY TO THESE SCUMBAGS” cause you will get nothing back in return… no pay day no feedback from scamhunter, no nothing… good luck in your investing, just don’t put your money here >Date of experience: 15 February 2024 >Company adress dosnt exist So I Googled there ceo... Same name was done for fraud... I also Google there company adress it's a housing estate in London .... And I've purchased 85 TH roughly 560 pounds and hit with the same thing everyone else is telling me.... I have not been able to withdraw at all yet due to the high btc load....they owe me 500+ >Date of experience: 17 February 2024

Rydog_78

Did FTC actually go out and buy the Bitcoin for customers when they bought it or did FTX just funnel customer money strait through to Alameda research, it’s trading arm?

Iron0ne

Says the guy that was in bed with FTC.

PkmnTraderAsh

I owned FTC (Feathercoin) in 2013 (mined it and LTC) and converted to BTC before end of bull run. I owned NXT (Nextcoin) in 2018 (played around with exchanges and liked the idea for brief minute) and converted it to BTC before end up bull run. It's the same story every bull run - alts rise on ideas and die off with end of bull runs. Some are sticking around longer as crypto space becomes more mature, but you'll still be more likely to gamble/speculate on a loser.

Crypto__Sapien

Good on you for recognizing this scam attempt! Unfortunately these tactics do prey on some victims. In terms of fighting back, engaging further does open yourself to potential risks if they trick you into downloading malware. Best not to interact at all. A few options that are safer and can possibly help authorities: Document everything - save emails, record calls if legal in your area. Details like phone #s, sender addresses, and transcripts could aid investigation. Report issues - file complaints with local authorities, the FTC, exchange partners, etc. The more reports filed, the higher priority. Warn others - expose techniques used on forums/social media to educate potential targets without engaging directly. Prevent the next person from falling for same tricks. I know it's tempting to try getting vigilante justice, but safer to simply document, report, and bring awareness to protect others. Be very careful before clicking any links or files from them. Ultimately authorities are best equipped to handle the perpetrators when possible. Stay safe out there!

OMFGROFLMAO2

Wait, back then FTC had 0 BTC under custody, they actually had negative BTC in their books (don't actually know how that's possible), how are they shorting BTC if all trades ended on the bankruptcy notice?

ClotworthyChute

Another important point, these companies are being monitored by the jackboots with the SEC so there is no chance of anything resembling FTC, Celsius or Mt. Gox happening.

ClotworthyChute

GBTC is nothing at all like FTC. That post is misleading and should be removed. GBTC has higher fees than it’s competitors.

truckstop_sushi

"MAY HELP guard against" that's a legal qualifier shoehorned in there because their lawyers knew making a product claim without the "may" (maybe it will, maybe it won't) is asking for the FTC to fine you for making unsubstantiated Product Claims that they'd rather not have to argue in court to prove.

CryptoAbundance4All

Please be judicious with Solana. The overall blockchain governance is concerning and It’s only a matter of time before Federal Prosecutors or Investigative Research Firms begin to piece together the insights uncovered in the SBF trial; further investigate; and bring potentially criminal charges against the foundation and it’s founders. It starts with the multiple agreements between FTX/Almeda/SBF and Solana post token launch; followed by the ability for FTX to “turn off the blockchain” and control trading volume. It is obvious that Solana was complicit and benefited from the manipulation of the Solana token based on the timing of the incredible rise in its market cap. SBF is the biggest Solana holder (purchasing at 20 cents) and half of all Solana currently staked belongs Alameda, who continue to profit in rewards. Beyond taking a risk, I feel an ethical obligation to NOT purchase any Solana tokens at this time. They are too entangled in the criminal acts of FTX/Almeda/SBF and it doesn’t end there… Founders, insiders and VCs have control and It’s a brilliant plan. Leverage Airdrops to stimulate on-chain activity volume through the trading of useless meme coins that have no real value or utility; only capitalizing off the meme narrative. Increased user activity increases retail and VC investor confidence in the chain, which means more capital inflow. All the while, they can create unlimited supply and an unlimited number of these tokens that generate tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars in market cap while indirectly raising the price of Solana, all with minimal costs. It’s like printing money out of Air(drops.) And by the way, there is no cap on Solana tokens… In fact, transparency in token supply has been an ongoing issue at Solana. Don’t get me wrong, There are good things happening on the chain but it’s all because of the community. Now is not the time to buy Solana tokens or support the bad actors currently in control. The valuation is extremely frothy because VC groups and many influencers are selling us on the most bullish picture of Solana, creating FOMO among their followers. Since Solana does not provide transparency on its foundation expenses, there is no way to know if these influencers are being compensated to promote the blockchain or have a vested interest in its success. We have to put our trust in their adherence to disclose under FTC law. And I’m not sure they all do… In fact, I've posted this comment on other influencer channels and It was deleted. We deserve better. There is better tech out there that is more decentralized with goals of advancing the space ethically. That’s the amazing thing about crypto, it’s the first asset class where the retail investor has the leg up on Wall Street. We get to choose! However, that doesn’t mean we should drop our guard. There are still VC’s and insiders that have the upper hand. This is not exclusive to Solana but it is to their detriment. Be careful, things could get really heated up legally. Take profits and wait for this to flush out before investing. You’ll know when the opportunity is right.

beenscammed2023

This happened to me. I added $1000 first, then was told another would be refunded in 48rs but was reinvested. Then I was told to pay 30% or $7000 to get them out. I didn’t but it’s frustrating because I’ve reported it to the BBB, SEC, FTC etc. how does this get out. The person I worked with I thought was someone my sister knew…they are still on FB now…how do they get caught? What can be done to warn others?

tbombs23

Nope nothing is insured and if they claim to be they're lying. Voyager digital fraudulently claimed FDIC insurance and look how that turned out. There was a 1.65billion settlement with FTC regarding it. Luckily they suspended the judgement so Voyager can pay more back to creditors to supplement the measly 35% we initially got back

MushroomMermaid80

This could actually happen, a guy I know was on a dating site scamming women out of $ telling them he was doing bitcoin investing for them but setting up his own accounts. Eventually he got busted by the FTC for fraudulent trading. But no one reported him because he would also get incriminating information over texts that he could use against people. I hope he lost everything when the crypto market went down.

AngryRobot42

That is not how the law works. The key word their is evidence. You cannot just manifest evidence out of nothing, it takes time. And to your other statement that price gouging doesn't exist then you have not been reading the lawsuits that the FTC brought up against Amazon for price gouging two months ago. So yes, according to your own logic, companies were price gouging and lawsuits like: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power

life762

If price gouging is "obvious", then take your evidence (that's apparently in plain sight) to the FTC. It's particularly strange to say price gouging is "obvious" from retailers. Retailers? Seriously? Retail is a low-margin business. If one or a consortium of retailers are price gouging, an independent retailer will swoop in with lower prices and steal their business. In reality, price-gouging is not an obvious cause of high prices, because there are many things that can cause high prices. There's a connection there that needs to be proved. What you call "obvious" is really just your assumption.

life762

Yep, the answer is there is no direct connection between prices and profits. Like I said, prices are set by market forces, supply and demand. Notice I didn't mention "profits." There can be a lot of reasons why profits can increase that are not related to prices at all. I'll give you an example. Profits of oil companies has been higher during the term of the current president than the last president. I'll put forth two possible explanations (although there are certainly many more): 1. Oil company execs decided to start price-gouging. Maybe they woke up one day and decided to be greedier. Or maybe they took advantage of real supply shocks in order to sustain high prices longer than necessary. A lot of people want to believe this. It's simple to understand, and people are predisposed to hate big oil anyway. Here's another possible explanation. 2. The administration implements policies that disincentivize investment into oil. When companies don't invest, they are less prepared for the future but their profits immediately go up. You'll see this on 10-K filings. Notice profits increase regardless of what current oil prices are. Frankly, #2 is a lot more believable to me. This example was about oil, where OPEC has a legal monopoly, but #1 is even more absurd in other industries where markets are more free. Grocery and food supply, for example, are low-margin businesses. It's hard for a grocer or supplier to price gouge because another grocer or supplier will step in with lower prices and take their business. Do you really think when egg prices triple, that's because fat cat grocers and chicken farmers are in the back room twirling their mustache, rubbing their hands together as they rake in the big bucks? If you've ever met a grocer or chicken farmer, you'd understand the absurdity; these aren't super rich people. Or is it more likely that eggs are more expensive because chicken feed, labor and transportation costs have all gone up? And when you trace the causes of all those increased costs, where do you think it will all lead? There can be natural reasons, like natural disaster, famine, acts of God, whatever, but one of the primary reasons is simple: policy. Somebody with power somewhere created a policy that had a bunch of downstream effects which ultimately increased costs. It would be in the interest of those policy makers to pretend like they're not causing problems and point the blame somewhere else. Many people will go along with them because it's easier to understand and feels good to believe "they make lots of money, so they bad" -- and I'm not saying that policy makers are pure bad and everyone else downstream is pure good -- but taking what a president or any other policy-maker says at face value is ridiculous. Like I said, if the U.S. president or _anyone_ has evidence of price-gouging, they can take that evidence to the FTC. That would do us all a favor. But it seems more likely that they're just misdirecting.

commander_clark

Asking in good faith, because I am not very knowledgeable in this department - Can you ELI5 how price of goods being much higher while corporations are posting record profits is not price gouging? Maybe not the FTC involved legalese definition but conceptually price gouging?

life762

Prices don't respond to what you think they "should" do. Prices are set by market forces, supply and demand. If you or the U.S. president have actual evidence of price-gouging, then go talk to the FTC. If, on the other hand, you want to complain about prices because they're politically inconvenient, then carry on.

anonymouscitizen2

This is the biggest acquirement in finance. I wonder if the FTC will stop the acquisition of Dogelon mars

ConclusionMaleficent

I would like to point out that way before FTC crashed they were pushing the BTC price down so they could buy cheap BTC to cover what they claimed to hold for their clients. It was their actions in 2021 not their collapse that triggered the bear market. Google it!!!

JDepinet

Problem is they are trying to define crypto as securities. They don’t properly fit that role. This industry should be regulated by the FTC not the Sec.

MakeTotalDestr0i

They will still flag you with large transactions and freeze things even when you think you are "KYC'd" because every transaction is a new risk assessment. They are completely opaque by law and it's almost impossible to meet their burden to prove yourself innocent of the imaginary money crime. One cannot simply contact support to smooth over any issues before transaction. Every transaction resets your standing. It is a true Kafkaesque clusterfuck of tyranny . You can struggle to be as legal as possible and still get your shit frozen in a morass of " I don't knows" bounced through an Infinite loop of phone calls and emails only resolved by sending attorney in to liberate your money. My advice is get that attorney pre loaded and ready to go. Also have FTC and attorney general and all those other agencies form ready to file complaints. This is what Ive had to do over single BTC. Luckily I didn't have to pay a lawyer because I was able to explain my legal case using law pulled from internet . But I can almost guarantee next time I try to do anything with my own money in account they will put me through the ringer again.

GTKFANL

TL;dr: BlackRock forced the SEC’s hand by filing a spot Bitcoin ETF application. This is not a drill. There’s two currents going on here. The first is legal pressure. Multiple federal courts have ruled against the SEC in cases involving crypto assets. People talk about Lina Khan being ineffective at the FTC but Gary Gensler has an equally bad if not worse track record on this stuff. For example, the SEC was ordered to review Grayscale’s application to turn their Bitcoin and Ethereum trusts into spot ETFs. In another example, it appears highly likely that the SEC will lose its lawsuit against Coinbase; not to mention they just had to drop securities fraud charges against the heads of Gemini after a federal judge reprimanded SEC lawyers for experimenting with “new legal authority” in his courtroom. The second is institutional pressure. The SEC’s argument against spot ETFs from companies like Grayscale, VanEck, and ARK is that they’re too small and young to protect consumers from the risks / volatility of crypto assets. There actually is a bit of truth to this. But there’s nothing prima facie wrong with their applications, at least nothing so defective that couldn’t be fixed in the normal comment and revision period. BlackRock, on the other hand, is the largest asset management firm in the world. If there is an Illuminati, Larry Fink is probably the Chairman. They’ve never filed an ETF application that didn’t get approved. Their presence in crypto-markets will bring legitimacy and, frankly, a whole lot of price stability. An important note here is that the SEC is implicitly required by statute to treat ETF application has presumptively valid. That’s why people are giving such near term predictions. It’s not them divining the future, the SEC is required to respond within a certain timeframe. I forget the dates right now but I think the last possible date they can hold BlackRock’s application is January 4, 2024. So the SEC has two options: 1. They can approve the BlackRock application and let their ETF go to market. But their application is basically the same as all the others, so approving theirs cuts off any legitimate legal argument they’d make against the others. So the SEC would have to approve them all! 2. They can reject the BlackRock application. Who knows what exactly would happen here but the likely scenario is that BlackRock would sue the SEC in federal court, and they would win. The only thing the SEC would get in taking this option is more time… for Congress to pass a law explicitly declaring their oversight of crypto assets? I don’t even know. In any case, losing to BlackRock means you’d also be forced to approve all the other applications.

PsyOmega

> 2 to 5 percent of fiat currency transactions attributed to money laundering and the like, according to United Nations data". That's lowballing it. "Cash and checks were used in 14 percent and 13 percent of fraudulent transactions, respectively, while debit cards were used in 10 percent of cases." -FTC.gov

e789162

With the incoming FTC approval, next years halving and a golden cross I don't see how this is not the time to take risks. If this is the start of a bullrun, then the 3k could turn into 50k. I don't see how risking 3k for a real chance to get 50k is unreasonable. Would it be better to split the investment? 1k 2x, 1k 3x, 500 4x and 500 5x for example?

PepeDeCorozal

The FCC has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of anything on the air. They are a licensing agency, not a censor. He is thinking of the FTC. And even then, it would be difficult to stop Burger King because they could put some fine print calling it a "dietary supplement" and the FDA would leave them alone, meaning the FTC would not pursue it.

JeffWest01

GAAP, SEC, FTC, IRS.. to name just of a few of the sources of regulations.

somethingimadeup

This is good. This is them putting extra precautions on investors in the case that if investors lose money they can say “I told you it was risky you can’t sue me” This was probably based on further consulting with the FTC to show that any approved ETF has the relevant warnings to investors. This is bullish.

pizzapicnic

The FTC is suing Voyager's former CEO, Stephen Ehrlich, for falsely claiming that customer deposits were insured by the FDIC. Tue FTC also chose to suspend the fine of $1.65 billion until money is paid back to customers.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has reached a settlement with crypto company Voyager Digital and has charged its former CEO, Stephen Ehrlich, with falsely claiming that customers' deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FTC alleges that Voyager misled consumers into depositing funds by promising that their deposits would be safe. When the company collapsed, consumers lost access to significant assets, resulting in over $1 billion in losses. The proposed settlement permanently bans Voyager from handling consumers' assets and imposes a judgment of $1.65 billion, which will be suspended to allow Voyager to return remaining assets to consumers in bankruptcy proceedings. The case against Stephen Ehrlich will proceed in federal court. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

forceworks

This week at the FTC trial we found out that -SBF thought he had a 5% chance of becoming President. -He wanted to buy Snapchat -They bribed Chinese officials with $150 million What crazy nonsense will we discover next week?

raymv1987

Yep. I'd he stunned if they didn't go for an appeal. Hell, I think the FTC is still going to try some appeals or reinvestigation of the Microsoft purchase of ABK and that deal closed

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has reached a settlement with crypto company Voyager Digital and has charged its former CEO, Stephen Ehrlich, with falsely claiming that customers' deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FTC alleges that Voyager misled consumers into depositing funds by promising that their deposits would be safe. When the company collapsed, consumers lost access to significant assets, resulting in over $1 billion in losses. The proposed settlement permanently bans Voyager from handling consumers' assets and imposes a judgment of $1.65 billion, which will be suspended to allow Voyager to return remaining assets to consumers in bankruptcy proceedings. The case against Stephen Ehrlich will proceed in federal court. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

raymv1987

Who runs the FTC? Can he take Gary's job?

Wonzky

Settling with Voyager and then suing the CEO, FTC on a rampage

kirtash93

Really great news for Voyager customers. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it reached a settlement with the bankrupt cryptocurrency company Voyager. **The settlement will permanently ban Voyager from using consumers' assets.**

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has reached a settlement with bankrupt cryptocurrency loan company Voyager. The settlement permanently bans Voyager from using consumers' assets. The FTC is also filing a lawsuit against the company's former CEO. Further details about the lawsuit and settlement have not been disclosed. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

kirtash93

TLDR; The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it reached a settlement with the bankrupt cryptocurrency company Voyager. **The settlement will permanently ban Voyager from using consumers' assets.**

Magnus77

This really feels more FTC than SEC tbh. The biggest part of the problem was he completely misled people as to what product he was selling, not cooking the books (as far as I know) of a security. Still fraud, but different flavor.

mr_sew

If you are a U.S. citizen... Maybe report them to the SEC, the FTC, and file a complaint with the BBB. Write your congressman and senators.

Silver-dutch

“New FTC Data Show Consumers Reported Losing Nearly $8.8 Billion to Scams in 2022 | Federal Trade Commission.” Same thing with fiat

DingDongWhoDis

>Journalists also need to be mindful that the cryptocurrency industry’s claims to be transparent; it is anything but. >Take the claim that cryptocurrency transactions can be tracked on the blockchain, making it more transparent than the traditional financial services industry. Sure, you can track some cryptocurrency activity on public blockchains, and you’re definitely not getting a peek into the inner workings of say, JPMorgan Chase or Bank of America. But while some transactions can be tracked on a publicly available blockchain ledger, there are other transactions occurring on off-chain tools, because the blockchain is difficult to scale. In other words, some cryptocurrency transactions aren’t occurring on publicly available ledgers, because they’re faster, cheaper, and more private than validating transactions across all the computers connected to the blockchain, as Investopedia explains. Therefore, wrongdoing could occur in the space without being detected even by cryptocurrency enthusiasts that know how to analyze crypto transactions on the blockchain. >Furthermore, the financial health of exchanges or their conflicts of interest might not be clear from analyzing blockchain transactions, explained Allen. Take the bankruptcy of FTX, for example. Though Sam Bankman-Fried told the Financial Times in July 2021 that he thought FTX could grow large enough to buy Goldman Sachs one day, a leak published last November on the crypto news site CoinDesk ultimately revealed the company’s troubling balance sheet, a revelation that wouldn’t be obvious to anyone working outside the company. >The Impact of Covering Crypto >Though major publications have played the role in amplifying the cryptocurrency industry in a positive light, researchers have tried to sort out exactly how much the press has played a role in driving cryptocurrency prices. >In an April 2022 paper published in the Royal Society Open Science journal, Kelly Coulter, founder of the digital assets and machine-learning analytics firm West Street Research, analyzed the correlation between crypto media coverage and Bitcoin prices from 2018 to 2020, as have other researchers in recent years. Coulter found some minor Bitcoin price fluctuations that appeared to correlate with reporting on cryptocurrency crime, government regulation, and the overall crypto market. >Other researchers have examined the possible correlations between media coverage and cryptocurrency prices. A September 2022 paper published in the Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money found that press coverage catalyzed Bitcoin returns amid an economic bubble. In other words, there’s a possibility that press coverage may have played a partial role in influencing Bitcoin prices for better or for worse. For consumers wanting to know whether crypto was worth investing in, uncritical or celebratory articles about the space wouldn’t tip them off to the messiness of the largely unregulated industry. >Well before this year’s collapses of FTX, Celsius and Terra / Luna, there were major hacks of QuadrigaCX, Bitfinex and Mt. Gox, which resulted in millions of dollars worth of assets being stolen digital assets, driving down the trust in the industry, Coulter noted. >“The crypto crime really plays a huge role in negative sentiment and pushing the crypto prices down because of the lack of trust,” Coulter said. “These hacks obviously instigate public debate about how public digital assets are not being kept safe on these exchanges and there’s lack of regulation to protect consumers.” >The SEC and the FTC did not comment regarding how the press coverage of the cryptocurrency industry affected their view of it. In a statement to DAME, the CFPB said it “enforces federal consumer financial laws as directed by Congress, and part of our charge involves monitoring all consumer financial markets. We will continue to monitor the crypto-asset market closely—including through the complaints filed to us regarding these products.” >In light of the FTX collapse, there’s a danger that “the bad apple” narrative will become the dominant story, meaning that FTX was an outlier in an otherwise sound crypto industry, Allen said. >Aside from warning the public about what’s happening in the crypto industry, properly reporting on the risks of cryptocurrency is critical for informing regulators and policymakers who aren’t glued to the cryptocurrency industry drama on social media, Allen noted. >Following the collapse of Terra Luna, Allen said that, while she observed an increase in critical coverage, “there was plenty out there in the press that was sort of very puff piece-y. And I think this is particularly important because I think for a lot of people in Washington who are making the rules, developing policy, drafting legislation, etc. I think they don’t get their news necessarily from Twitter, right? They get their news from media outlets. And the critical coverage of crypto is very accessible on Twitter if you want to look for it.” >In the end, it is our government’s job to protect the public from potential financial harm and to understand and regulate complex financial services. And while social media and influencers play a huge role in driving crypto hype, the press also plays a crucial role in shaping public perception of the crypto industry, not just among unsuspecting investors but also regulators.

DingDongWhoDis

(Published Feb. 27th) >For many people, the first time they heard about cryptocurrency might have been in splashy headlines about the skyrocketing value of digital currencies Bitcoin or Ethereum. They might have seen their favorite celebrities endorsing cryptocurrencies during the Super Bowl. If they hang on Elon Musk’s every word, they might have heard some mentions of dogecoin. But even after all that hype, some people still might not have understood what’s the deal with crypto. To answer that question, the New York Times tried to help. >In March 2022, the New York Times published tech columnist Kevin Roose’s “The Latecomer’s Guide to Crypto,” which offered some basic explanations to questions like, “what is a cryptocurrency?”or, “what is a blockchain?”. But in anticipation of criticism, Roose acknowledged that “crypto boosters will likely quibble with my explanations, while dug-in opponents may find them too generous.” >Swiftly after the Times hit publish, software engineer Molly White, software engineer Grady Booch, journalist Amy Castor, “Crypto Critics Corner” podcast co-host Bennett Tomlin, Dr. Catherine Flick, Ph.D., of De Montfort University Leicester and other cryptocurrency skeptics annotated Roose’s article to address the “many questionable or entirely fallacious arguments from cryptocurrency advocates,” they wrote. The annotations included critiques of arguments made in the article, ranging from the definition of the supposed market value of cryptocurrency to the unscalability of blockchain technology. >Roose, for example, points to El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele announcing that the country would develop a “Bitcoin City.” But as skeptics pointed out, a Rest of World article published just days before the Times’ crypto guide, detailed the lack of Bitcoin adoption among local businesses and consumers. Another article in Bloomberg, illustrated how local businesses were not using the digital currency to transact. (El Salvador adopted the U.S. dollar as its official currency in 2011, according to USA Today.) >Roose’s ambitious crypto explainer was written before the FTC disclosed that consumers lost millions of dollars to cryptocurrency scams and fraud, an indicator that scammers were using the novelty of cryptocurrency to defraud people, primarily between 20 and 49 years old in investment-related, business imposter, government imposter, and even romance scams. But perhaps more importantly, it was written after some articles in publications like Mother Jones and the Wall Street Journal and warnings from former PayPal CEO Bill Harris and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon all called Bitcoin or cryptocurrency overall a fraudulent concept. Those warnings beg the question: Why have some publications continued to boost the crypto industry when there were signs of its invalidity? >The criticism that followed the Times’ article is indicative of a much bigger problem about the way the press has covered—and indeed amplified—the cryptocurrency industry to regulators and the general public. The question is why. In light of crypto’s monumental collapses, isn’t it the job of journalists—who have the power to lead and shape the conversation—to do due diligence, ask the difficult questions and delve into the industry as deeply as possible, so readers understand what they’re getting into? >Decoding Crypto >Much like the rest of the financial sector, the cryptocurrency industry is fairly complicated to understand. Hilary Allen, associate professor at American University’s Washington College of Law, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on the risks of stablecoins and argued that Congress should prevent crypto from causing a financial crisis, explains that crypto appears to be deliberately complicated to circumvent scrutiny from the public and regulators, even as it has been labeled as a tool for financial inclusion. >We’ve seen this before, during the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis, when the finance sector said credit default swaps (CDS) were too complicated for regulators to understand, Allen explained. Investopedia defines CDS as a financial instrument that lets an investor offset their credit risk with another investor’s risk, meaning that a lender buys the CDS from another investor who pays them if the borrower defaults. >During the 2008 financial crisis, subprime mortgages, which were bundled into another financial instrument called mortgage-backed securities, enabled previously excluded consumers (particularly Black Americans and middle-income Americans) from buying a home. But when those new homeowners began defaulting on their homes and the economy collapsed, the people targeted for the so-called financial inclusion product were the same people who lost both their homes and their jobs, Allen said. >Is the cryptocurrency ecosystem substantial enough to send shockwaves through the U.S. economy as the Great Recession did? No. But it shares similar traits. Both target disadvantaged groups looking to build wealth. Both have had a disproportionately negative impact on people of color. And both continued to harm unsuspecting people until the problems they caused are too big for regulators to ignore. Now, the crypto boom has left consumers reporting more than $1 billion in losses from outright scams and billions more from the platforms proclaiming to be reputable. >One takeaway from the Great Recession was that journalists must maintain a critical eye on any financial services firms’ grand proclamations. Though there may be a wave of positive news coming out of a sector, it’s critical for reporters to consider their underlying motives. If investors and regulators with their authority and expertise did not see these collapses coming, how can journalists be more discerning? And to what extent does not being a subject matter expert influence a reporter’s ability to question the hype surrounding the cryptocurrency industry?

samer109

>The documents, part of the FTC's lawsuit against Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard, >this move aligns with the trend of public companies exploring blockchain and cryptocurrency integration. This would be huge, also good that that is the sentiment by companies towards the blockchain in general..

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Microsoft is considering integrating crypto wallet support into its Xbox gaming suite, according to leaked documents. The documents, part of the FTC's lawsuit against Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard, reveal plans that may have changed since the leak. While details are scarce, this move aligns with the trend of public companies exploring blockchain and cryptocurrency integration. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

raymv1987

Will add some caveats here. Leak wasn't to test the waters. It was a note (that may not even be in the plans anymore) in some docs as part of the FTC case related to acquiring Activision. My guess is the integration would just be for allowing the purchase of digital games and services using crypto.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Microsoft is considering integrating crypto wallet support into its Xbox gaming suite, according to leaked documents. The documents, part of the FTC's lawsuit against Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard, reveal plans that may have changed since the leak. While details are scarce, this move aligns with the trend of public companies exploring blockchain and cryptocurrency integration. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

clue5tick

But they can "back" their ETFs with contractual Bitcoin that the consumer will never see, if the FTC approves. You're totally free to follow that dream. Just don't confuse it with actual Bitcoin that you own, which this reddit once was about.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Crypto social media scams are on the rise, with scammers using various tactics to deceive users and steal their funds. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reported that over $1 billion was lost to crypto scams in the 18 months leading up to June 2022, with almost half of those scams starting on social media platforms. Scammers often exploit the blue verification ticks on social media to appear authentic and promote fraudulent projects. "Pig butchering" scams, where scammers pose as successful traders and persuade victims to invest in crypto or forex trading, have also become prevalent, resulting in significant financial losses. To stay safe, users are advised to use hardware wallets, implement multi-signature wallets with timelocks, engage in smart contract security audits, and adhere to secure password practices. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Toke-N-Treck

No, in the US, it is clearly stated by the FTC that if companies send you things you didn't order or ask for, you are under no obligation to return them. It's basically just a free gift at that point. Anyone attempting a return is just being nice

Bozzooo

You can report scams to FTC in United States.

soks86

Most of your replies are just "lol." Are you a bot? You don't know anything about regulations. FTC? It's the CFTC and its been regulated since day 1 or it wouldn't be open because that's how designated contract markets work. FTX had nothing to do with anything. SBF spent some money, big whoop. Have a good day, lol.

93george

“Yes all my points were the same but that doesn't change the point or the value proposition. The point is options are a productive financial instrument. You also don't have to cap your gains, if you are aware that this can happen then should be equally aware that it is not required.” Lmfao you don’t know how options work. Ok. “Padewan? I've been here since '10. Value is relative, 1 btc = 1 btc doesn't actually mean anything and is meant as a political statement. I'm sure you're aware so...” I think I might be incapable of understanding this level of stupidity. “What's funny? Do regulated markets amuse you?” Nah I didn’t realize someone bought the name out of the FTX bankruptcy for a million dollars and wound up getting them regulated by the FTC so I guess it’s not as scammy as I thought, but you do realize it was a scam at one point right?

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; TikTok is being flooded with fake cryptocurrency giveaway scams, with scammers impersonating Elon Musk, Tesla, and SpaceX. These scams prompt users to register an account on fake crypto exchange or giveaway sites, promising free cryptocurrency. However, the scammers steal any deposited crypto and users receive nothing in return. These scams have been successful in the past, stealing millions of dollars. With TikTok's popularity, scammers are increasingly targeting the platform. The scams often use deep fake videos of Elon Musk promoting the fake giveaways. The FTC has warned that $80 million has been lost to cryptocurrency investment scams since October 2020. It is important to recognize that almost every crypto giveaway site is a scam, especially those claiming to be from high-profile individuals or exchanges. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

AdaNaut360

No, that was a lie. FTC actually turned her down. The article she put out was just to make her look smart after the FTX fallout.

ghochumal

All i want is for the innocent retail investor to get their money back. Fk Sam Fk FTC.

wheelzoffortune

Am I missing something? Didn't we already have a crash (at least partially) because of FTC?

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Former Celsius CEO, Alex Mashinsky, has filed a motion seeking the dismissal of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) case against him. Mashinsky's legal team argues that the allegations do not support the claim that he knowingly made a misstatement to fraudulently obtain customer information from a financial institution. They also claim that because Mashinsky resigned from his position as CEO of Celsius, the complaint cannot prove that he is violating or about to violate the law. The FTC issued a $4.7 billion fine against Celsius Network and filed a lawsuit against Mashinsky and other co-founders. Mashinsky has pleaded not guilty to multiple charges of criminal fraud. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

ArtoriusFrost

After everything that has transpired he thinks he can fight this case against the FTC? He’s gotta be taking the piss!

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Former Celsius CEO, Alex Mashinsky, is seeking to have the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) drop its case against him. Mashinsky, who was arrested in July on charges of fraud and manipulating the price of the CEL token, has pleaded not guilty and his lawyers argue that the allegations are baseless. They are requesting that the court dismiss the FTC's claims that he misled investors. Mashinsky's former Chief Technology Officer, Hanoch "Nuke" Goldstein, also filed a separate motion arguing that he is being unjustly held guilty by association. The U.S. Attorney has asked the court to put the FTC proceedings on hold to avoid prejudicing the parallel criminal case. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

SlowpokesEmporium

FTC trying to scrape what they can together to pay for their lawyer fees.

Simke11

Yeah I'm thinking people are front running FTC selloff.

YogSothothIsTheKey

Where are your proofs of what you'r saying?Offcourse a big exchange like another big market maker or hedge fund do something sketchy but what?Please dont compare that super scam of FTC with a real good service like Binance.The day we will have proof and the day CZ will rugpull his customers I will agree with you,but fortunally thay day is not today,and I hope will never come.God bless you if you sold at 16k 🙏

mattg1981

FTC, Celsius, etc. are good examples of what you want to self custody.

lj26ft

Chairman Jay Clayton. Before he was the personal attorney for todays SEC and back then CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler. Miller was the GC of FTX and the one who was responsible for FTX's legal issues. Ryan Miller and Sullivan and Cromwell were Sam Bankman Frieds Door to Washington (SEC, CFTC, Congress) He's also the one who, a few months before the collapse of the FTC, described how the collapse of an exchange can lead to more regulation. He was also the lawyer who organized the takeover of bankrupt Voyager Digital by FTX just a month before FTX collapsed. JPMorgan was FTX prime broker, handling its trading in stocks and stock futures. And after the collapse Sullivan & Cromwell placed nearly a billion of FTX's client funds with JPMorgan. The collapse of FTX led to the collapse of Sillicon Valley Bank. JPMorgan was an advisor and shareholder of Silicon Valley Bank. After the collapse of Sillicon Valley Bank, JPMorgan acquired the bank on extremely favorable terms. A few month later due to the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank, First Republic bank went under too. And guess who aquired it for cheap? Bingo! It was again JPMorgan. The DOJ even made an exception for JPMorgan from the antitrust laws, actually JPM would have been too big to take over these bank even before they aquired it for cheap. So the only ones that have benefited tremendously from the FTX collabs are Sullivan & Cromwell and JPMorgan. Sullivan & Cromwell collected tens of millions in advisory fees and JPMorgan was able to write billions in profits thanks to FTX and its bargain acquisition of Sillicon Valley and First Republic Bank. And where did all those crypto customers go? Exactly. JPMorgan. It is quite impressive what games you can play as the ruler of US dollar liquidity.

Allistair--Tenpenny

What agency are you thinking about? You think some FTC nerd who did a full 180 and launched bitcoin as a revenge for not getting promoted and becoming jaded after 10 years of working on "consumer protection".

MaximumStudent1839

Beware of all these fintech companies coming into crypto - including these L2s. They are regulated hard in TradFi for a good reason. PayPal often get sued by the FTC/CFPB for good reasons. I bet they are coming into crypto because they see the lack of regulation and tons of stupid retail liquidity here.

cinlung

FTC ok with this? I mean FTC been witch hunting all crypto related company all this time, and not knowing their own people, gov, buying BTC?

Right_Willow

Consumer Rights, BBB, SEC, FTC, all these organizations & companies exist for a reason my friend; legal notices, etc…

genjitenji

They have a great episode with a seemingly tweaking SBF and Erik Vorhees debating each other just before FTC collapsed, so tripping watching that episode and then seeing everything happen right after. If there’s a movie, that episode needs to be a scene.

manticor225

Basically people who are scammed are less likely to take higher risks going forward and will diversify. But I find this point in the article more interesting: >The researchers also came across another surprising finding: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been understating the amount of Ethereum lost to scams by a factor of 16. The paper, titled “Cybercrime on the Ethereum Blockchain,” cites a report commissioned by the FTC that estimates $106 million worth of ETH has been lost on the network. >According to the researchers, who ran an Ethereum full node to collect and analyze the data—costing the team nearly $100,000, according to Momtaz—the number of “abducted funds,” is closer to $1.65 billion. >“This is striking,” he explained, “because they are the primary agency that informs governments who later make policy decisions.”

SaintRosen

I bought last year with intentions of holding for long time, week later, FTC happened and I've lost trust in long term investment. Now I'm still learning how to day trade scalping and swing trading. It's much more fun btw

cogentat

I mean, one could argue that the whole crypto market is a ponzi scheme given that no large number of cashouts has triggered a meltdown yet-- and that in every case where a large number of people demanded their money (FTC, Luna, Celsius), it turned out to fit the definition. And before people start saying 'but Bitcoin,' lets not forget that Tether is questionably solvent and is artificially inflating BTC's value as well.

509BandwidthLimit

Like the price of BTC, just wait an hour it will change...one judge says yes, one says no, the IRS says one thing the FTC says another.

Arcosim

The sad thing is that they offer earn programs with big APRs a lot of degens will flock into FTC 2.0

pcvcolin

Wholly apart from what I or anyone else thinks of the SEC or Coinbase, and apart from what I might consider to be a good standard for asset evaluation by an exchange prior to a potential listing, the SEC doesn't have the authority to impose digital asset listing or delisting. It's the exchange / financial institution that decides whether or not an asset should be listed, what questions determine whether or not the asset should be listed, and when an asset should be delisted. (In the example of outright scams it's possible court cases would result in cessation of listings, but the SEC can't just order that certain assets or many assets go away, that is outside its authority.) If the concern is that Coinbase doesn't have a certain license or registration that SEC manages (and that the law requires), the SEC could say, "you are required to register as a broker-dealer." But the idea that nearly every asset imaginable is a "security" that can't be listed without broker-dealer registration is certainly not a good reading of the law (in fact it would be an improper and false reading of the law, as well as being an attempt at abuse of discretion). It's not a very cautious consideration by the SEC of recent case law, either, since the U.S. Supreme Court has more recently been disinclined to acquiesce to whatever the SEC wants. And frankly I don't think lower courts, that is, federal courts, will entertain the SEC's broad and restrictive views either. The U.S. Supreme Court has most recently found held in April 2023 that federal district courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear cases raising structural challenges to the FTC or SEC. See also a discussion / comment on this issue of court treatment of the SEC (covered in another subreddit) at: https://np.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/15bypfu/time_to_get_rid_of_chevron_deference_once_and_for/jtulsu5

Belnak

Literally hundreds. According to a report by Cornerstone Research, the SEC has brought 127 enforcement actions against digital-asset market participants since its first cryptocurrency-related enforcement action in 2013 through the end of 2022, and has continued with more this year. Additionally, the FTC and CFTC have pursued crypto firms, as well.

LatinumGirlOnRisa

I found the WorldCoin website long before I knew who was behind it and I did NOT like what I saw. it just looked *wrong:* the :production design,' so to say. the whole layout, the font/text, the use of language, the colors, etc. for me the look of a site says *LOT* about what's going on under the hood and everything about that one screamed, *SCAM! Stay Away!* then I found out it was the same guy that was collecting iris scans from people in developing countries in exchange for WorldCoin and THEN I learned *both* projects were the weird @ss brain child of the chatGPT dude, Sam Altman. and I *immediately* didn't like him after seeing him being interviewed by a very wooden woman who asked him absolutely ridiculous questions and seemed way too impressed with him altogether. they were interacting like robots because there seemed to be no depth to either one of them, it was truly a very weird interaction. and I think it was a few weeks ago when I saw in the news that Sam A./ChatGPT was being investigated by the FTC for data security concerns, including a potential data leak of consumers' financial information and other sensitive personal data. Sam is also being investigated for defamation of the character of consumers and is already being sued by specific individuals for libel, including a radio host out of Georgia. all of this as it comes to light that ChatGPT has churned out absolutely false information about specific consumers, much of which has been very harmful to their reputations. and if that seems like a lot we're not done yet because there's more, including but not limited to the fact that: the UK's private information regulator, the ICO, is now looking into ChatGPT over concerns about the biometric data being collected by Sam's iris scanning orbs in exchange for WorldCoins and a WorldCoin ID. ok, yeah, Sam Altman, WorldCoin & ChatGPT are all becoming, exponentially, more creepy by the day, by the hour. info sources⤵️: [OpenAI’s Sam Altman got his wish for more regulatory attention, courtesy of the FTC](https://qz.com/openai-s-sam-altman-got-his-wish-for-more-regulatory-at-1850636788) [FTC Investigating ChatGPT for Saying Harmful Things About People](https://futurism.com/the-byte/ftc-openai-chatgpt-investigation) [UK Privacy Regulator 'Making Enquiries' Into Sam Altman’s Worldcoin Amid Token Launch](https://decrypt.co/149943/uk-privacy-regulator-making-enquiries-sam-altmans-worldcoin-token-launch)

RudyStylez

A lot more now after FTC, Celsius, and countless other times where withdrawals were paused or stopped.

pbjclimbing

Keep in mind, there have to be laws that are broken for the FTC to act. They can’t just say that they don’t like crypto and are going to fine a company. The thing is that FTC’s laws are trade related, not security/crypto related. If a company broke trade laws then the FTC can act.

Belnak

It shouldn't. The FTC shouldn't be restricted to technicalities in order to purse criminals.

FirstBlastThenAsk

What did the FTC fuck up so bad that they must use crypto to distract the public now?

WaterAndBananas

All about going after Celsius but this scares me: "And because the FTC can act without needing to show that a token is a security – or has any other regulatory status – it has considerable leeway to act in the area of financial services"

ghochumal

the FTC is using its broad authorities to police allegedly deceptive or unfair practices in crypto – which don’t depend on whether a token is a security, commodity, or any other regulatory category. Sure FTC sure. Now that your budgets have cut down drastically after the microsoft debacle you sure have guts.

BrendanTFirefly

So what? The FTC is going after Celsius. Good, they should. Celsius fucked people over.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; The Vermont Department of Financial Regulation (DFR) has issued a warning about the increasing number of crypto investment frauds happening on popular social media platforms. The DFR highlighted a recent incident where a 74-year-old man lost his life savings of $340,000 to a crypto scam on Instagram and Telegram. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has rated Instagram as the top platform connected to crypto fraud. The scam involved the victim creating an account on a platform called SpireBit, where he was coerced into making investments. The platform showed fake profits on every trade, leading the victim to invest more money. The DFR blames the rising crypto scams on con artists using more complex and personalized tactics. They urge people to exercise caution, conduct background checks, and report fraud promptly. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Former Celsius CEO, Alex Mashinsky, has been arrested on federal securities fraud charges, while the bankrupt crypto exchange has agreed to pay a $4.7 billion settlement with government regulators. Mashinsky and a co-defendant, Roni Cohen-Pavon, face decades in prison if convicted. The settlement, one of the largest in the FTC's history, will not be paid until customer assets are returned in bankruptcy proceedings. The SEC has also charged Mashinsky and Celsius with misleading investors and fraudulently manipulating the price of Celsius' exchange token. The charging documents describe Celsius' exchange token as a security. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Former CEO of Celsius Network, Alex Mashinsky, has been released on $40 million bail after being arrested on fraud charges. Mashinsky denies all charges and plans to mount a strong defense. The bail was secured using his opulent residence in Manhattan. Mashinsky's arrest is part of a larger crackdown on fraudulent activities in the crypto industry. Celsius Network, which filed for bankruptcy last year, is also facing a $4.7 billion civil settlement with the FTC. The SEC has filed civil fraud charges against Mashinsky and Celsius Network, seeking to ban Mashinsky from operating an exchange. The outcome of Mashinsky's legal proceedings could have implications for the future of the cryptocurrency industry and the establishment of stricter regulations. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*

Arcosim

The fact that Alex Mashinsky is paying his $4.7 billion settlement with the FTC with funds that he withdrew from Celsius during the days prior to the collapse is infuriating. They knew the ship was sinking and they kept accepting customers and deposits.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Celsius, a bankrupt crypto lending firm, has filed a motion to distribute funds from the sale of GK8, a self-custody platform. The proposed settlement allocates $24 million for legal expenses and the remaining $1 million for the holders. The settlement aims to avoid costly litigation and provide certainty for all parties involved. Celsius purchased GK8 for $115 million in 2021 and sold it as part of its restructuring plan after filing for bankruptcy in 2022. The company is currently facing legal issues, including a lawsuit from the SEC and a fine from the FTC. The former CEO, Alex Mashinsky, has been arrested and pleaded not guilty. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*