Doug Polk CoinFlex Discussion
Why aren’t there a bunch of poker pros on there if it’s a scam. There’s 4 employees lol one is Doug
If someone is trying to frame him (make him look bad) which one can't completely rule out, given that millions of dollars are involved in the topic at hand, this is a massive plot twist, one worthy of a movie being made about it!
Is there any way of checking what date/year the profile was created on? That is the first obvious line of investigation.
Is there any way of checking what date/year the profile was created on? That is the first obvious line of investigation.
To all the fanboys saying that Doug didn't intentionally scam people, and that somehow lets him off the hook, you clearly aren't fanboying hard enough. If you listened to the Doug/Jungleman podcast (which Doug has now removed to undoubtedly scrub his Coinflex shilling) it goes something like this:
Coinflex Doug: So Durrrr has been a scumbag.
Jungleman: I wouldn't say that, I don't think it serves any purpose calling him a scumbag and he didn't have any malicious intent.
Coinflex Doug: NO! He was DEFINITELY a scumbag. You have to call people out for being a scumbag. If we always try to see the other side of things, we let people off the hook and they don't suffer the consequences of their actions.
Does that last line sound familiar? Doug is trying to completely absolve himself of this mess take zero fault at all here.
The bottom line is that Doug was approached by Coinflex to be their ambassador for $X. Doug decided that whatever this amount of money was, was enough for him to shill the product to his listeners and followers. He must have done some sort of cost/benefit analysis and decided that yes, the risk of this company going tits up is outweighed by the potential reward they were willing to pay him.
Doug is still out here either answering layup questions or thanking the fanboys that are still supporting him while avoiding actual tough questions.
- Why didn't his due diligence actually verify FlexUSD was fully collateralized?
- What's his understanding of how Coinflex could offer up to 20% interest?
- How much of his own money, outside of his compensation from Coinflex did he put on the platform?
Doug says he only promoted Coinflex as having 5-15% variable interest, but from what I remember on the few podcasts I listened to, he promoted 15-20%. He also had some sort of promotion where he had $100k in FlexUSD and would give away the interest generated in that account. Since he's removed all of his Coinflex podcasts, it's hard to verify exactly what rate he kept spewing, but it was high enough that as soon as I heard it I googled "Coinflex is a scam".
At the end of the day, Doug lead his followers to a poisoned well. And when his followers got sick, his response was "I didn't put the poison in that well! I'm not at fault at all!"
If you went to a doctor, and they prescribed you a new medication that they were getting kickbacks from the manufacturer and you never got better or got sicker, you'd put some fault on the doctor right?
Doug's non-apology statement is just the cherry to top everything off. The only things he needed to say to save any semblance of respect was this:
- Actually apologize for promoting a company he didn't fully understand the mechanisms of and didn't verify their claims of FlexUSD being fully collateralized.
- Offer to repay his FlexUSD compensation if they liquidate the remaining $90MM they should have in the bank.
That's literally it. Instead he doubled down on his innocence, offered zero apology, claimed zero fault and cried "BUT GUYS I HAVE MY FLEXUSD COMPENSATION FROZEN TOO!!!"
Just absolute pure clown scumbag **** through and through.
Coinflex Doug: So Durrrr has been a scumbag.
Jungleman: I wouldn't say that, I don't think it serves any purpose calling him a scumbag and he didn't have any malicious intent.
Coinflex Doug: NO! He was DEFINITELY a scumbag. You have to call people out for being a scumbag. If we always try to see the other side of things, we let people off the hook and they don't suffer the consequences of their actions.
Does that last line sound familiar? Doug is trying to completely absolve himself of this mess take zero fault at all here.
The bottom line is that Doug was approached by Coinflex to be their ambassador for $X. Doug decided that whatever this amount of money was, was enough for him to shill the product to his listeners and followers. He must have done some sort of cost/benefit analysis and decided that yes, the risk of this company going tits up is outweighed by the potential reward they were willing to pay him.
Doug is still out here either answering layup questions or thanking the fanboys that are still supporting him while avoiding actual tough questions.
- Why didn't his due diligence actually verify FlexUSD was fully collateralized?
- What's his understanding of how Coinflex could offer up to 20% interest?
- How much of his own money, outside of his compensation from Coinflex did he put on the platform?
Doug says he only promoted Coinflex as having 5-15% variable interest, but from what I remember on the few podcasts I listened to, he promoted 15-20%. He also had some sort of promotion where he had $100k in FlexUSD and would give away the interest generated in that account. Since he's removed all of his Coinflex podcasts, it's hard to verify exactly what rate he kept spewing, but it was high enough that as soon as I heard it I googled "Coinflex is a scam".
At the end of the day, Doug lead his followers to a poisoned well. And when his followers got sick, his response was "I didn't put the poison in that well! I'm not at fault at all!"
If you went to a doctor, and they prescribed you a new medication that they were getting kickbacks from the manufacturer and you never got better or got sicker, you'd put some fault on the doctor right?
Doug's non-apology statement is just the cherry to top everything off. The only things he needed to say to save any semblance of respect was this:
- Actually apologize for promoting a company he didn't fully understand the mechanisms of and didn't verify their claims of FlexUSD being fully collateralized.
- Offer to repay his FlexUSD compensation if they liquidate the remaining $90MM they should have in the bank.
That's literally it. Instead he doubled down on his innocence, offered zero apology, claimed zero fault and cried "BUT GUYS I HAVE MY FLEXUSD COMPENSATION FROZEN TOO!!!"
Just absolute pure clown scumbag **** through and through.
IF IT SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, IT IS...even if Doug Polk smartest crypto cat around thinks he knows how DD works
Doug Polks definition of scumbug certainly is quite broad. He called Ben86 a psychopath as well which seemed very over the top. I was finding myself agreeing with Jungle throughout the whole podcast, except for some exceptions. There is no "calling a spade a spade", here. That's just nonsense. These are value judgements, not empirical. But the value judgements are way off centre compared to what most people think, IMO.
Okay, so we can rule out it being a very recently added fake profile to try to frame Doug Polk / make him look bad.
That leaves I think 3 other possibilities: (in no particular order)
a) It is a genuine profile that he set up himself and all information added was added by him.
b) As above, set up by him, but subsequently has been hacked and altered, and if so,
then maybe the hack was very recent to try to frame him/make him look bad.
c) It was a fake profile set up 3 or more years ago, for fun, or to troll, or just for the sheer hell of it.
The problem with c) is that it would be an almost unbelievable coincidence that the faker would include jobs/roles/company associations that closely fit with something that 2 plus years later has come up, i.e. Crypto lending exchanges/schemes/hedge funds.
So I am inclined to almost entirely rule out c),....unless, it was a fake/troll profile set up by someone,
and has then been recently hacked by somebody else.
a) I believe is most likely and b) second most likely, but who knows, there is so much weird stuff going on around this whole Coinflex thing, that it would be foolish to rule anything out.
I mean Lamb and Ver disputing who owes who, Polk not being smart enough to cover his own back when an ambassador by giving some basic risk warnings, the rvUSD rescue coin which you would think is obviously ridiculous to invest in but Lamb claims he has big interest in. The list of weird stuff goes on and on.
Good work.
Okay, so we can rule out it being a very recently added fake profile to try to frame Doug Polk / make him look bad.
That leaves I think 3 other possibilities: (in no particular order)
a) It is a genuine profile that he set up himself and all information added was added by him.
b) As above, set up by him, but subsequently has been hacked and altered, and if so,
then maybe the hack was very recent to try to frame him/make him look bad.
c) It was a fake profile set up 3 or more years ago, for fun, or to troll, or just for the sheer hell of it.
The problem with c) is that it would be an almost unbelievable coincidence that the faker would include jobs/roles/company associations that closely fit with something that 2 plus years later has come up, i.e. Crypto lending exchanges/schemes/hedge funds.
So I am inclined to almost entirely rule out c),....unless, it was a fake/troll profile set up by someone,
and has then been recently hacked by somebody else.
a) I believe is most likely and b) second most likely, but who knows, there is so much weird stuff going on around this whole Coinflex thing, that it would be foolish to rule anything out.
I mean Lamb and Ver disputing who owes who, Polk not being smart enough to cover his own back when an ambassador by giving some basic risk warnings, the rvUSD rescue coin which you would think is obviously ridiculous to invest in but Lamb claims he has big interest in. The list of weird stuff goes on and on.
Okay, so we can rule out it being a very recently added fake profile to try to frame Doug Polk / make him look bad.
That leaves I think 3 other possibilities: (in no particular order)
a) It is a genuine profile that he set up himself and all information added was added by him.
b) As above, set up by him, but subsequently has been hacked and altered, and if so,
then maybe the hack was very recent to try to frame him/make him look bad.
c) It was a fake profile set up 3 or more years ago, for fun, or to troll, or just for the sheer hell of it.
The problem with c) is that it would be an almost unbelievable coincidence that the faker would include jobs/roles/company associations that closely fit with something that 2 plus years later has come up, i.e. Crypto lending exchanges/schemes/hedge funds.
So I am inclined to almost entirely rule out c),....unless, it was a fake/troll profile set up by someone,
and has then been recently hacked by somebody else.
a) I believe is most likely and b) second most likely, but who knows, there is so much weird stuff going on around this whole Coinflex thing, that it would be foolish to rule anything out.
I mean Lamb and Ver disputing who owes who, Polk not being smart enough to cover his own back when an ambassador by giving some basic risk warnings, the rvUSD rescue coin which you would think is obviously ridiculous to invest in but Lamb claims he has big interest in. The list of weird stuff goes on and on.
Someone has been using DougÂ’s name and likeness for the last three years in an elaborate crypto scam spanning across at least three companies over as many years.
Given DougÂ’s online presence and remarkable knack for showing up in all manner of online threads where his name is mentioned, I donÂ’t think think that this is a reasonable conclusion to come to.
I would now like to add that there is now another Douglas Polk LinkedIn account that is popping up now. This account is paying for LinkedIn premium.
This account has no activity at all and did not appear in my initial search less than 12 hours ago. There was only one profile with DougÂ’s name and likeness in my initial search. I would not have done any research into LexCapital Investments if I was unsure which account belonged to Doug.
From the information that IÂ’ve gathered, the best case conclusion that I can come up with is:
Someone has been using DougÂ’s name and likeness for the last three years in an elaborate crypto scam spanning across at least three companies over as many years.
Given DougÂ’s online presence and remarkable knack for showing up in all manner of online threads where his name is mentioned, I donÂ’t think think that this is a reasonable conclusion to come to.
I would now like to add that there is now another Douglas Polk LinkedIn account that is popping up now. This account is paying for LinkedIn premium.
This account has no activity at all and did not appear in my initial search less than 12 hours ago. There was only one profile with DougÂ’s name and likeness in my initial search. I would not have done any research into LexCapital Investments if I was unsure which account belonged to Doug.
Someone has been using DougÂ’s name and likeness for the last three years in an elaborate crypto scam spanning across at least three companies over as many years.
Given DougÂ’s online presence and remarkable knack for showing up in all manner of online threads where his name is mentioned, I donÂ’t think think that this is a reasonable conclusion to come to.
I would now like to add that there is now another Douglas Polk LinkedIn account that is popping up now. This account is paying for LinkedIn premium.
This account has no activity at all and did not appear in my initial search less than 12 hours ago. There was only one profile with DougÂ’s name and likeness in my initial search. I would not have done any research into LexCapital Investments if I was unsure which account belonged to Doug.
What about the links though between some of the personnel in his (fakely created) profile, companies, and Coinflex?
Is that just an acceptable coincidence because the Crypto exchange and hedge fund industry is quite small, a bit like a sports league with not many teams in it, so players naturally get transferred around from team to team, would that explain it?
Okay, so Crypto companies just using a fake profile they created of him to promote themselves with false claims that he is part of their team. That is definitely possible, and a big fail by me to not think of it as an option.
What about the links though between some of the personnel in his (fakely created) profile, companies, and Coinflex?
Is that just an acceptable coincidence because the Crypto exchange and hedge fund industry is quite small, a bit like a sports league with not many teams in it, so players naturally get transferred around from team to team, would that explain it?
What about the links though between some of the personnel in his (fakely created) profile, companies, and Coinflex?
Is that just an acceptable coincidence because the Crypto exchange and hedge fund industry is quite small, a bit like a sports league with not many teams in it, so players naturally get transferred around from team to team, would that explain it?
I canÂ’t say with an any degree of certainty what the **** has gone on.
But, based on what IÂ’ve found out. I think that thereÂ’s a lot more going on. And if Doug had this information about something that he thought was a scam there wouldÂ’ve been a 4 hour long YouTube video posted immediately.
Obviously if Doug thought this might be a scam, there's almost no amount of money that'd be worth the reputational harm, as his businesses are based on his reputation. And if he thought there was any chance it was a scam and was a slimeball, he'd obviously have chosen to be paid in USD instead of scam tokens. I'm not going to mad at him for getting duped/conned. I'll just take future investment recommendations from him with a grain of salt. People are allowed to mess up. He stepped down and came clean as soon as he figured out it was a scam.
Anyone saying it was an obvious scam should have taken Doug up on his 100:1 offer that it wasn't a scam. Most people are just speaking with hindsight bias or simply hate free money.
Also just because an investment Doug recommends results in a failure, doesn't mean Doug didn't do sufficient due diligence. Sometimes **** happens. Maybe he did do reasonably enough to endorse a product, maybe he didn't. The results can't tell you that. I'm not really sure if some employee(s) going off the stated business model which causes a company to go bankrupt is foreseeable. If the CFO embezzled a millions from Coinflex, does that mean the Doug should have done more DD on the CFO's personal ethics or something? At some point, an endorsement can't really predict all possible failure points of a recommendation, which is why they're not legally liable for this kind of thing.
I'm still on Team Doug!
Anyone saying it was an obvious scam should have taken Doug up on his 100:1 offer that it wasn't a scam. Most people are just speaking with hindsight bias or simply hate free money.
Also just because an investment Doug recommends results in a failure, doesn't mean Doug didn't do sufficient due diligence. Sometimes **** happens. Maybe he did do reasonably enough to endorse a product, maybe he didn't. The results can't tell you that. I'm not really sure if some employee(s) going off the stated business model which causes a company to go bankrupt is foreseeable. If the CFO embezzled a millions from Coinflex, does that mean the Doug should have done more DD on the CFO's personal ethics or something? At some point, an endorsement can't really predict all possible failure points of a recommendation, which is why they're not legally liable for this kind of thing.
I'm still on Team Doug!
Obviously if Doug thought this might be a scam, there's almost no amount of money that'd be worth the reputational harm, as his businesses are based on his reputation. And if he thought there was any chance it was a scam, he'd obviously have chosen to be paid in USD instead of scam tokens. I'm not going to mad at him for getting duped/conned. I'll just take future investment recommendations from him with a bigger grain of salt. People are allowed to mess up. He stepped down and came clean as soon as he figured out it was a scam.
Anyone saying it was an obvious scam should have taken Doug up on his 100:1 offer that it wasn't a scam. Most people are just speaking with hindsight bias or simply hate free money. And also just because an investment Doug recommends results in a failure, doesn't mean Doug didn't do sufficient due diligence. Sometimes **** happens.
I'm still on Team Doug!
Anyone saying it was an obvious scam should have taken Doug up on his 100:1 offer that it wasn't a scam. Most people are just speaking with hindsight bias or simply hate free money. And also just because an investment Doug recommends results in a failure, doesn't mean Doug didn't do sufficient due diligence. Sometimes **** happens.
I'm still on Team Doug!
Since he still claims it wasn't a scan betting with someone who will welch when he losses would be a bad bet. Although I find his claims "I didn't profit" interesting one has to be very trusting to feel if he was scamming he would feel a need to be truthful. He certainly had no problem seeing crypto scams when it was someone else being paid to be the shill. He certainly in the nicest interpretation didn't see this was a scam when he was the one being paid. YMMV
At the end of the day, Doug's reputation is ruined and really can't be salvaged. Sad stuff.
I suppose he'll still be able to grift from people who are on "Team Doug" and I guess that's one way to keep his various endeavors afloat.
I suppose he'll keep his texas poker room open that has contributed to the decline of licensed BIPOC owned poker rooms such as the ones in the tribal areas of Oklahoma.
My only questions are this:
Has anyone on Twitter, Reddit, Social Media or even people ITT said anything about filing a lawsuit against CoinFlex, et al?
Is it pretty 100% confirmed lawsuits are going to be filed or this just another case of people whining on the internet about just another grift?
I suppose he'll still be able to grift from people who are on "Team Doug" and I guess that's one way to keep his various endeavors afloat.
I suppose he'll keep his texas poker room open that has contributed to the decline of licensed BIPOC owned poker rooms such as the ones in the tribal areas of Oklahoma.
My only questions are this:
Has anyone on Twitter, Reddit, Social Media or even people ITT said anything about filing a lawsuit against CoinFlex, et al?
Is it pretty 100% confirmed lawsuits are going to be filed or this just another case of people whining on the internet about just another grift?
At the end of the day, Doug's reputation is ruined and really can't be salvaged. Sad stuff.
I suppose he'll still be able to grift from people who are on "Team Doug" and I guess that's one way to keep his various endeavors afloat.
I suppose he'll keep his texas poker room open that has contributed to the decline of licensed BIPOC owned poker rooms such as the ones in the tribal areas of Oklahoma.
My only questions are this:
Has anyone on Twitter, Reddit, Social Media or even people ITT said anything about filing a lawsuit against CoinFlex, et al?
Is it pretty 100% confirmed lawsuits are going to be filed or this just another case of people whining on the internet about just another grift?
I suppose he'll still be able to grift from people who are on "Team Doug" and I guess that's one way to keep his various endeavors afloat.
I suppose he'll keep his texas poker room open that has contributed to the decline of licensed BIPOC owned poker rooms such as the ones in the tribal areas of Oklahoma.
My only questions are this:
Has anyone on Twitter, Reddit, Social Media or even people ITT said anything about filing a lawsuit against CoinFlex, et al?
Is it pretty 100% confirmed lawsuits are going to be filed or this just another case of people whining on the internet about just another grift?
Oddly, I'm actually closer to the general sentiments of this post when it comes to this issue. "Team Doug" is a little strong, as is "not mad at him for being duped/conned." Doug's spidey senses should be stronger than that of his viewers, warnings and disclaimers notwithstanding. So while I won't victim-shame some of the people who got hurt by CoinFlex, I will Doug-shame to some degree because he should be held to a higher standard here.
Also agree that it makes little sense that Doug went into the arrangement knowing Coinflex was an outright scam (and by "scam," I mean something with ill intentions, not just a bad business). It's possible, but I consider it unlikely. As stated, his brand is too valuable for that. Some of you will disagree, and I respect that, but in this case, I'm with Ten5x on this one.
Also agree that I'll give him a few points for stepping down right away. We've seen people involved with (e.g.) Lock Poker who didn't do this, rather they doubled down in their support of the company. Best as I can tell, Doug did not do this, and I can respect it.
No idea about the 100-to-1 offer (where was this?), but if it existed, it actually means little to me as a defense for Doug. Depending on when such an offer took place, members of general public would not have access to the details Doug would/should have had from his due diligence as an ambassador.
Speaking of due diligence, I still also don't know what this means here. However, things could have looked legit at the start – assets, liquidity, liabilities – and a business can still fail. In fact, the term "due diligence" itself is always tricky. It's always a funny concept put in place as a CYA measure. Depending on what it entails, it is bound to have some flaws, loopholes, false negatives and false positives, and it's almost impossible to be infallible. Due diligence ultimately has the word "reasonable" in front of it, sometimes explicitly so, and as such, some things will slip through its net.
Here's a real-world example. Each of my current and previous employers has experienced the backlash and fallout for having an awful employee: one turned out to be a hebephile, the other got busted for peddling child pornography on a shady-ass social media app. (I never met the first person, but I did know the second, and I was absolutely dumbfounded to learn about his dirty secret.) The first is undergoing a lengthy trial, the second got arrested about a month ago.
So did the employers do their "due diligence?"
In both cases, the employers conducted the Live Scan background check (DOJ/FBI), made phone calls to references, and verified the candidates' employment/education history. As a former employee of one place and a current employee of the other, I know what this process entails. From a legal standpoint, that's due diligence.
Does it work? Overall, I'm sure it does. The process almost certainly weeds out a tremendous amount of potentially bad hires (and excludes a few potentially good ones but them's the breaks).
Did it work with the hires of these two guys? Obviously, no. Both people were honest with their employment history, both must have received glowing reviews from the people they chose to list as references, neither had a criminal history, neither appeared on a sex offender watch list, and neither had a record of being a possible domestic terrorist. That's everything the process could yield. The employers can rightfully say "we did our due diligence," and those monsters still managed to get hired.
And sure, someone will inevitably say, "you didn't do enough, you should have hacked their computers, subpoena'd the mobile and internet carriers to get their email and text histories, and hired a PI to follow their every move... then you would have found out!" And while that's true, that ranges from somewhat impractical to downright unconstitutional.
So what's my point of telling this, you may ask. I'll bring it back to this episode. Not knowing what Polk's due diligence entailed, I reserve the possibility that he did all of the research he could have been reasonably expected to do, and yet the business still failed miserably before turning to some shady practices.
Finally, I notice there are plenty of calls for an apology (or a "genuine" apology or a "sincere" apology). I actually don't care either way on this one. I've spent my entire professional life in as a PIO. Whether or not someone made a suitable apology always lies in the eyes of the listener or reader. Sure, I'll generally advise to say the actual words "I'm sorry" than not say it (from a PR standpoint, that is), but there is simply no way to say it that will convince some people of contrition. So for those asking for an apology, you'll never get what you want.
Also agree that it makes little sense that Doug went into the arrangement knowing Coinflex was an outright scam (and by "scam," I mean something with ill intentions, not just a bad business). It's possible, but I consider it unlikely. As stated, his brand is too valuable for that. Some of you will disagree, and I respect that, but in this case, I'm with Ten5x on this one.
Also agree that I'll give him a few points for stepping down right away. We've seen people involved with (e.g.) Lock Poker who didn't do this, rather they doubled down in their support of the company. Best as I can tell, Doug did not do this, and I can respect it.
No idea about the 100-to-1 offer (where was this?), but if it existed, it actually means little to me as a defense for Doug. Depending on when such an offer took place, members of general public would not have access to the details Doug would/should have had from his due diligence as an ambassador.
Speaking of due diligence, I still also don't know what this means here. However, things could have looked legit at the start – assets, liquidity, liabilities – and a business can still fail. In fact, the term "due diligence" itself is always tricky. It's always a funny concept put in place as a CYA measure. Depending on what it entails, it is bound to have some flaws, loopholes, false negatives and false positives, and it's almost impossible to be infallible. Due diligence ultimately has the word "reasonable" in front of it, sometimes explicitly so, and as such, some things will slip through its net.
Here's a real-world example. Each of my current and previous employers has experienced the backlash and fallout for having an awful employee: one turned out to be a hebephile, the other got busted for peddling child pornography on a shady-ass social media app. (I never met the first person, but I did know the second, and I was absolutely dumbfounded to learn about his dirty secret.) The first is undergoing a lengthy trial, the second got arrested about a month ago.
So did the employers do their "due diligence?"
In both cases, the employers conducted the Live Scan background check (DOJ/FBI), made phone calls to references, and verified the candidates' employment/education history. As a former employee of one place and a current employee of the other, I know what this process entails. From a legal standpoint, that's due diligence.
Does it work? Overall, I'm sure it does. The process almost certainly weeds out a tremendous amount of potentially bad hires (and excludes a few potentially good ones but them's the breaks).
Did it work with the hires of these two guys? Obviously, no. Both people were honest with their employment history, both must have received glowing reviews from the people they chose to list as references, neither had a criminal history, neither appeared on a sex offender watch list, and neither had a record of being a possible domestic terrorist. That's everything the process could yield. The employers can rightfully say "we did our due diligence," and those monsters still managed to get hired.
And sure, someone will inevitably say, "you didn't do enough, you should have hacked their computers, subpoena'd the mobile and internet carriers to get their email and text histories, and hired a PI to follow their every move... then you would have found out!" And while that's true, that ranges from somewhat impractical to downright unconstitutional.
So what's my point of telling this, you may ask. I'll bring it back to this episode. Not knowing what Polk's due diligence entailed, I reserve the possibility that he did all of the research he could have been reasonably expected to do, and yet the business still failed miserably before turning to some shady practices.
Finally, I notice there are plenty of calls for an apology (or a "genuine" apology or a "sincere" apology). I actually don't care either way on this one. I've spent my entire professional life in as a PIO. Whether or not someone made a suitable apology always lies in the eyes of the listener or reader. Sure, I'll generally advise to say the actual words "I'm sorry" than not say it (from a PR standpoint, that is), but there is simply no way to say it that will convince some people of contrition. So for those asking for an apology, you'll never get what you want.
Oddly, I'm actually closer to the general sentiments of this post when it comes to this issue. "Team Doug" is a little strong, as is "not mad at him for being duped/conned." Doug's spidey senses should be stronger than that of his viewers, warnings and disclaimers notwithstanding. So while I won't victim-shame some of the people who got hurt by CoinFlex, I will Doug-shame to some degree because he should be held to a higher standard here.
Also agree that it makes little sense that Doug went into the arrangement knowing Coinflex was an outright scam (and by "scam," I mean something with ill intentions, not just a bad business). It's possible, but I consider it unlikely. As stated, his brand is too valuable for that. Some of you will disagree, and I respect that, but in this case, I'm with Ten5x on this one.
Also agree that I'll give him a few points for stepping down right away. We've seen people involved with (e.g.) Lock Poker who didn't do this, rather they doubled down in their support of the company. Best as I can tell, Doug did not do this, and I can respect it.
No idea about the 100-to-1 offer (where was this?), but if it existed, it actually means little to me as a defense for Doug. Depending on when such an offer took place, members of general public would not have access to the details Doug would/should have had from his due diligence as an ambassador.
Speaking of due diligence, I still also don't know what this means here. However, things could have looked legit at the start – assets, liquidity, liabilities – and a business can still fail. In fact, the term "due diligence" itself is always tricky. It's always a funny concept put in place as a CYA measure. Depending on what it entails, it is bound to have some flaws, loopholes, false negatives and false positives, and it's almost impossible to be infallible. Due diligence ultimately has the word "reasonable" in front of it, sometimes explicitly so, and as such, some things will slip through its net.
Here's a real-world example. Each of my current and previous employers has experienced the backlash and fallout for having an awful employee: one turned out to be a hebephile, the other got busted for peddling child pornography on a shady-ass social media app. (I never met the first person, but I did know the second, and I was absolutely dumbfounded to learn about his dirty secret.) The first is undergoing a lengthy trial, the second got arrested about a month ago.
So did the employers do their "due diligence?"
In both cases, the employers conducted the Live Scan background check (DOJ/FBI), made phone calls to references, and verified the candidates' employment/education history. As a former employee of one place and a current employee of the other, I know what this process entails. From a legal standpoint, that's due diligence.
Does it work? Overall, I'm sure it does. The process almost certainly weeds out a tremendous amount of potentially bad hires (and excludes a few potentially good ones but them's the breaks).
Did it work with the hires of these two guys? Obviously, no. Both people were honest with their employment history, both must have received glowing reviews from the people they chose to list as references, neither had a criminal history, neither appeared on a sex offender watch list, and neither had a record of being a possible domestic terrorist. That's everything the process could yield. The employers can rightfully say "we did our due diligence," and those monsters still managed to get hired.
And sure, someone will inevitably say, "you didn't do enough, you should have hacked their computers, subpoena'd the mobile and internet carriers to get their email and text histories, and hired a PI to follow their every move... then you would have found out!" And while that's true, that ranges from somewhat impractical to downright unconstitutional.
So what's my point of telling this, you may ask. I'll bring it back to this episode. Not knowing what Polk's due diligence entailed, I reserve the possibility that he did all of the research he could have been reasonably expected to do, and yet the business still failed miserably before turning to some shady practices.
Finally, I notice there are plenty of calls for an apology (or a "genuine" apology or a "sincere" apology). I actually don't care either way on this one. I've spent my entire professional life in as a PIO. Whether or not someone made a suitable apology always lies in the eyes of the listener or reader. Sure, I'll generally advise to say the actual words "I'm sorry" than not say it (from a PR standpoint, that is), but there is simply no way to say it that will convince some people of contrition. So for those asking for an apology, you'll never get what you want.
Also agree that it makes little sense that Doug went into the arrangement knowing Coinflex was an outright scam (and by "scam," I mean something with ill intentions, not just a bad business). It's possible, but I consider it unlikely. As stated, his brand is too valuable for that. Some of you will disagree, and I respect that, but in this case, I'm with Ten5x on this one.
Also agree that I'll give him a few points for stepping down right away. We've seen people involved with (e.g.) Lock Poker who didn't do this, rather they doubled down in their support of the company. Best as I can tell, Doug did not do this, and I can respect it.
No idea about the 100-to-1 offer (where was this?), but if it existed, it actually means little to me as a defense for Doug. Depending on when such an offer took place, members of general public would not have access to the details Doug would/should have had from his due diligence as an ambassador.
Speaking of due diligence, I still also don't know what this means here. However, things could have looked legit at the start – assets, liquidity, liabilities – and a business can still fail. In fact, the term "due diligence" itself is always tricky. It's always a funny concept put in place as a CYA measure. Depending on what it entails, it is bound to have some flaws, loopholes, false negatives and false positives, and it's almost impossible to be infallible. Due diligence ultimately has the word "reasonable" in front of it, sometimes explicitly so, and as such, some things will slip through its net.
Here's a real-world example. Each of my current and previous employers has experienced the backlash and fallout for having an awful employee: one turned out to be a hebephile, the other got busted for peddling child pornography on a shady-ass social media app. (I never met the first person, but I did know the second, and I was absolutely dumbfounded to learn about his dirty secret.) The first is undergoing a lengthy trial, the second got arrested about a month ago.
So did the employers do their "due diligence?"
In both cases, the employers conducted the Live Scan background check (DOJ/FBI), made phone calls to references, and verified the candidates' employment/education history. As a former employee of one place and a current employee of the other, I know what this process entails. From a legal standpoint, that's due diligence.
Does it work? Overall, I'm sure it does. The process almost certainly weeds out a tremendous amount of potentially bad hires (and excludes a few potentially good ones but them's the breaks).
Did it work with the hires of these two guys? Obviously, no. Both people were honest with their employment history, both must have received glowing reviews from the people they chose to list as references, neither had a criminal history, neither appeared on a sex offender watch list, and neither had a record of being a possible domestic terrorist. That's everything the process could yield. The employers can rightfully say "we did our due diligence," and those monsters still managed to get hired.
And sure, someone will inevitably say, "you didn't do enough, you should have hacked their computers, subpoena'd the mobile and internet carriers to get their email and text histories, and hired a PI to follow their every move... then you would have found out!" And while that's true, that ranges from somewhat impractical to downright unconstitutional.
So what's my point of telling this, you may ask. I'll bring it back to this episode. Not knowing what Polk's due diligence entailed, I reserve the possibility that he did all of the research he could have been reasonably expected to do, and yet the business still failed miserably before turning to some shady practices.
Finally, I notice there are plenty of calls for an apology (or a "genuine" apology or a "sincere" apology). I actually don't care either way on this one. I've spent my entire professional life in as a PIO. Whether or not someone made a suitable apology always lies in the eyes of the listener or reader. Sure, I'll generally advise to say the actual words "I'm sorry" than not say it (from a PR standpoint, that is), but there is simply no way to say it that will convince some people of contrition. So for those asking for an apology, you'll never get what you want.
Doug’s case is entirely different. He was approached by CoinBase to be a spokesperson. He became the face of the company. He’s been attacking people for crypto and poker scams for the past 7 years at least.
It’s highly improbable that given Doug’s behaviour of being the paragon of morality when it comes to both poker and crypto that he just signs on the dotted line when approached with a contract from a company that promises returns.
He’s either the dumbest person alive. Or he knows that it’s a scam.
Uh, I didn't do a music video?
Hey guys, lot of good sleuthing, but you are using a fake linkedin
This is mine
https://www.linkedin.com/in/douglas-polk-77b7b0121
Just wanted to clear that up. Assume that other one is a scammer.
This is mine
https://www.linkedin.com/in/douglas-polk-77b7b0121
Just wanted to clear that up. Assume that other one is a scammer.
Also to clarify, this company is in this position now because they took park in risky uncollateralized positions, not because the premise of the returns was scam.
If you are going to file a lawsuit, first you've got to find where the company's headquarters is located. I've tried to find where CoinFlex is based. One site said Seychelles, another said Hong Kong. Seychelles, which I never heard of before this week is about as far as you can get from the United States in the Indian Ocean. It consists of 115 islands and has the highest incarcerated rate in the world, about 15% higher than the US. Good luck trying to sue this company. And what assets are you going to get, computer chips, or maybe some property on one of the 115 islands.
They do have a cool looking flag though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seychelles
They do have a cool looking flag though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seychelles
Is there a connection between the two?
Such a shame that company, really had all the conditions to continue to grow, get investment, go to 10 figures territory, but somehow not even halfway they had do do risky **** to fuel the 5-20% interest. SAD!
How could it happen that the thing that gave you the most pause in investing(Ver being an investor) and you didn't tell anyone about, was it to be the very thing that would bring the company down? Who could have predicted this?
In the interest of transparency, are you able to follow the below steps and provide a screenshot? Feel free to blur out any other personal details.
Open LinkedIn
Go to your settings page (click on your name at the top of the screen)
Click on Settings & Privacy
In the Data privacy section, look at How LinkedIn uses your data
Click Manage your data and activity
This brings up a list of all your activity on LinkedIn
Go to the last page and youÂ’ll see the You Joined LinkedIn date
As I stated previously, the LinkedIn profile that you’ve linked didn’t appear in my search less 24 hours ago.
The fake account using your name and likeness still takes precedence in search results. I know for a fact that Microsoft search queries prioritise keyword searches based on created date descending. LinkedIn is a Microsoft product.
Why is your official LinkedIn profile in the name of Douglas? There’s not much brand synergy in that.
Can you please explain how a phone number connected to a now (supposedly) fake profile is now connected to Scalar Capital, a company that lists Linda Xie and Jordan Clifford as 66% of their staff and their verified Twitter profiles specifically mention Scalar Capital and Coinbase. You can’t disagree that that’s very weird?
Just so you know. My profile on LinkedIn is private, and even though you’re paying for premium. The only information youÂ’ve going to get from my visits to your profiles is “LinkedIn member visited your profile”
Open LinkedIn
Go to your settings page (click on your name at the top of the screen)
Click on Settings & Privacy
In the Data privacy section, look at How LinkedIn uses your data
Click Manage your data and activity
This brings up a list of all your activity on LinkedIn
Go to the last page and youÂ’ll see the You Joined LinkedIn date
As I stated previously, the LinkedIn profile that you’ve linked didn’t appear in my search less 24 hours ago.
The fake account using your name and likeness still takes precedence in search results. I know for a fact that Microsoft search queries prioritise keyword searches based on created date descending. LinkedIn is a Microsoft product.
Why is your official LinkedIn profile in the name of Douglas? There’s not much brand synergy in that.
Can you please explain how a phone number connected to a now (supposedly) fake profile is now connected to Scalar Capital, a company that lists Linda Xie and Jordan Clifford as 66% of their staff and their verified Twitter profiles specifically mention Scalar Capital and Coinbase. You can’t disagree that that’s very weird?
Just so you know. My profile on LinkedIn is private, and even though you’re paying for premium. The only information youÂ’ve going to get from my visits to your profiles is “LinkedIn member visited your profile”
In the interest of transparency, are you able to follow the below steps and provide a screenshot? Feel free to blur out any other personal details.
Open LinkedIn
Go to your settings page (click on your name at the top of the screen)
Click on Settings & Privacy
In the Data privacy section, look at How LinkedIn uses your data
Click Manage your data and activity
This brings up a list of all your activity on LinkedIn
Go to the last page and youÂ’ll see the You Joined LinkedIn date
As I stated previously, the LinkedIn profile that you’ve linked didn’t appear in my search less 24 hours ago.
The fake account using your name and likeness still takes precedence in search results. I know for a fact that Microsoft search queries prioritise keyword searches based on created date descending. LinkedIn is a Microsoft product.
Why is your official LinkedIn profile in the name of Douglas? There’s not much brand synergy in that.
Can you please explain how a phone number connected to a now (supposedly) fake profile is now connected to Scalar Capital, a company that lists Linda Xie and Jordan Clifford as 66% of their staff and their verified Twitter profiles specifically mention Scalar Capital and Coinbase. You can’t disagree that that’s very weird?
Just so you know. My profile on LinkedIn is private, and even though you’re paying for premium. The only information youÂ’ve going to get from my visits to your profiles is “LinkedIn member visited your profile”
Open LinkedIn
Go to your settings page (click on your name at the top of the screen)
Click on Settings & Privacy
In the Data privacy section, look at How LinkedIn uses your data
Click Manage your data and activity
This brings up a list of all your activity on LinkedIn
Go to the last page and youÂ’ll see the You Joined LinkedIn date
As I stated previously, the LinkedIn profile that you’ve linked didn’t appear in my search less 24 hours ago.
The fake account using your name and likeness still takes precedence in search results. I know for a fact that Microsoft search queries prioritise keyword searches based on created date descending. LinkedIn is a Microsoft product.
Why is your official LinkedIn profile in the name of Douglas? There’s not much brand synergy in that.
Can you please explain how a phone number connected to a now (supposedly) fake profile is now connected to Scalar Capital, a company that lists Linda Xie and Jordan Clifford as 66% of their staff and their verified Twitter profiles specifically mention Scalar Capital and Coinbase. You can’t disagree that that’s very weird?
Just so you know. My profile on LinkedIn is private, and even though you’re paying for premium. The only information youÂ’ve going to get from my visits to your profiles is “LinkedIn member visited your profile”
But since it was Doug he claims no responsibility, has excuse after excuse and coincidentally this LinkedIn page that everyone could find is now from a scammer. And he links another one. Hmmmm. Sure. It's all kosher of course Doug.
In the interest of transparency, are you able to follow the below steps and provide a screenshot? Feel free to blur out any other personal details.
Open LinkedIn
Go to your settings page (click on your name at the top of the screen)
Click on Settings & Privacy
In the Data privacy section, look at How LinkedIn uses your data
Click Manage your data and activity
This brings up a list of all your activity on LinkedIn
Go to the last page and youÂ’ll see the You Joined LinkedIn date
As I stated previously, the LinkedIn profile that youÂ’ve linked didnÂ’t appear in my search less 24 hours ago.
The fake account using your name and likeness still takes precedence in search results. I know for a fact that Microsoft search queries prioritise keyword searches based on created date descending. LinkedIn is a Microsoft product.
Why is your official LinkedIn profile in the name of Douglas? ThereÂ’s not much brand synergy in that.
Can you please explain how a phone number connected to a now (supposedly) fake profile is now connected to Scalar Capital, a company that lists Linda Xie and Jordan Clifford as 66% of their staff and their verified Twitter profiles specifically mention Scalar Capital and Coinbase. You canÂ’t disagree that thatÂ’s very weird?
Just so you know. My profile on LinkedIn is private, and even though you’re paying for premium. The only information you’ve going to get from my visits to your profiles is “LinkedIn member visited your profile”
Open LinkedIn
Go to your settings page (click on your name at the top of the screen)
Click on Settings & Privacy
In the Data privacy section, look at How LinkedIn uses your data
Click Manage your data and activity
This brings up a list of all your activity on LinkedIn
Go to the last page and youÂ’ll see the You Joined LinkedIn date
As I stated previously, the LinkedIn profile that youÂ’ve linked didnÂ’t appear in my search less 24 hours ago.
The fake account using your name and likeness still takes precedence in search results. I know for a fact that Microsoft search queries prioritise keyword searches based on created date descending. LinkedIn is a Microsoft product.
Why is your official LinkedIn profile in the name of Douglas? ThereÂ’s not much brand synergy in that.
Can you please explain how a phone number connected to a now (supposedly) fake profile is now connected to Scalar Capital, a company that lists Linda Xie and Jordan Clifford as 66% of their staff and their verified Twitter profiles specifically mention Scalar Capital and Coinbase. You canÂ’t disagree that thatÂ’s very weird?
Just so you know. My profile on LinkedIn is private, and even though you’re paying for premium. The only information you’ve going to get from my visits to your profiles is “LinkedIn member visited your profile”
And you think those things are not related? You think they took those risks just for fun right? LOL
No more Doug profile under the Lex Capitals Investment on LinkedIn. It says 4 employees but only shows 3. Maybe the 4th, which was “fake” Doug, and is now gone.
Doug unless the company had the proper reserves to match/hedge the pegging, it was never legit and was always a Ponzi scheme.
Doug unless the company had the proper reserves to match/hedge the pegging, it was never legit and was always a Ponzi scheme.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE