https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/03/kim-...promotion.html

the tl;dr is that Kim Kardashian was fined $1.2 million for failing to disclose to the public that she was paid to post an ad for a crypto currency she shared on her Instagram.

“This case is a reminder that, when celebrities or influencers endorse investment opportunities, including crypto asset securities, it doesn’t mean that those investment products are right for all investors,” Gary Gensler, chairman of the SEC, said in a news release.

Do we think Doug's expected compensation for shilling CoinFlex was greater than $135k?

Just seeing who put a higher pricetag on their reputation.

The reality TV superstar and influencer has settled Securities and Exchange Commission charges that she failed to disclose a payment she received for touting a crypto asset on her Instagram feed, the agency announced Monday morning.

So, is Doug going to disclose what he was paid? Seems like it’s illegal not to

The key line "“The federal securities laws are clear that any celebrity or other individual who promotes a crypto asset security must disclose the nature, source, and amount of compensation they received in exchange for the promotion,” said Gurbir S. Grewal, director of the SEC’s enforcement division.". Shows how all who have supported Doug being an innocent victim are fools.

I don’t think Doug intentionally broke this law in the beginning. I don’t think Doug intended to be malicious, I think he was taken advantage of as a part of someone’s scheme. Ignorance is no defense of the law however and of course he should have known better. But honestly, poker players don’t know much of anything.

If he was dumb enough to take this on without having an attorney advising him on disclosure, and what he can and can't say, he deserves everything that may come his way on this.

I don't think he would be that dumb, but given his indiscretion with throwing **** out about Robbi and Rip personal matters...who know.

The last time I posted in this thread, FlexUSD was $.30 --- now it's lost 1/2 it's value.


Does that mean that CoinFlex now needs to raise twice as much Recovery tokens to pay back the people holding the bag on FlexUSD?

Remember when they paid out 10% of people's balances months ago and Doug and others tried saying that proved it wasn't a scam and people would likely get there money back

Yep. This is the problem with 1:1 pegs lol

pretty sure that its market price is not connected to how much funds they need to raise, that should be determined by the amount of funds CoinFLEX has AFAIK

I can't believe there's posters ITT suggesting that people who do not hold FLEX can not have an opinion.

So I have to be an idiot who is holding the bag on a "Guaranteed 20%+" high yield investment scam to have an opinion this topic? Or was it... "Guaranteed you wont lose money," even though FLEX is down over 80% from it's Pegged 1:1 usd value.

To that point specifically, there's a lot of people who fall for scams and they simply won't fess up to being a victim of a scam. YouTube channels like Trilogy media and other scambaiting channels have documented this phenomenon.

A lot of people who have fallen for scams, refuse to believe that there isn't a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I don't get it either.

Is CoinFlex officially dead?

Frankly, whether or not Doug lost money in Coinflex (DOUBT!), is a completely seperate issue from the

HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY HE WAS PAID TO PROMOTE IT INITIALLY.

If he'd wasted his money on Beanie Babies, would we be saying "well he broke even?!". NO.

But because he pretends that he wasted his money on the same scam he was promoting, we accept that as an excuse? NO.

Yea there's absolutely no way an influencer is gonna accept 100% of payment in a platform, locked, with no way to withdraw.

Is that what he meant by this? Because I never saw any clear indication that he hadn't profited actual money. At first he said if they didn't allow withdrawals he would have lost money, and then after they allowed 10% withdrawals, he said this:

Why would it make any difference if he "could have sold it coinflex tokens but didn't" and "could have sold flexUSD and indeed did", or vice versa? Once you do one or the other, you have profited. And if he didn't sell flexUSD, why did he only say he didn't sell coinflex tokens? Maybe I am missing something here. Seemed to me that he did and didn't want to admit it.

I mean if you read that above quote in the context that he did profit and didn't want to admit it, then it makes a lot more sense, but if he simply didn't profit overall, why wouldn't he indicate that clearly instead of implying it.

As someone above mentioned, apparently it's illegal for him not to disclose this info, so hopefully the mystery will be solved. If he takes a 90k hit via the challenge and only recoups 10% of his promotion payments, he would have had to be paid <900k in order to not profit.

I was (unfortunately) a web developer for an influencer marketing company for 3 years building an app which facilitates negotiations between influencers and brands, and in my experience <900k here would be a joke for the amount of ads he ran and his reach / engagement rates. His numbers are really good, influencer marketing is expensive. He also rans ads on his poker club's stream.

In my opinion he very likely profited and then mislead the public about it. I seriously doubt otherwise.

If I am looking at the correct contract... it appears 521 people have the FLEX token.



Safe to say the majority of these people got in because of Doug?
Or would that assumption be incorrect?

Probably all of them. Right?

As you say, that's an assumption, and therefore not "safe to say."

I think he is a moral person but the incentive here was too big. I suspect he justified it that there are no guarantees he not promising lambos and didnt take into account people will buy in simply because they trust him.

He claims that he was paid in crypto and never withdrew it. Considering he pays someone to write and edit his videos and podcasts, I believe him that he lost money on the deal. With that said, it doesn't excuse him for pumping something like this without the proper disclosures and what not.

If you are a moral person the size of the bribe to behave evilly is not an issue. Assuming you think he is not incredibly stupid he knew that the site believed he could persuade enough people to buy such that the site would profit enough not just to pay his bribe but for the site to profit as well.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...ay/ar-AA12VXqh



The Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday also charged NRIA and four of its former executives—including Salzano and Grabato—with bilking 2,000 investors by falsely promising to use their money to buy and develop real estate properties. The group solicited investigators with promises of returns “of up to 20 percent.”

“Among the investors were 382 retirees who contributed more than $94.8 million from retirement accounts,” the SEC complaint states.

The SEC says that in reality, the group used the money “to pay distributions to other investors, to fund an executive’s family’s personal and luxury purchases, and to pay reputation management firms to thwart investors’ due diligence of the executives.” The federal indictment says the money was also used to pay for high-end cars, at least one week-long trip to the Jersey shore that included a banquet and hotel rooms for a dozen friends and family, and to pay Salzano’s wife at least $3,000 a week for a no-show job.

“These defendants schemed to create a high-pressure, fraudulent marketing campaign to hoodwink investors into believing that their bogus real estate venture generated substantial profits,” U.S. Attorney Philip Sellinger said in a press release announcing the charges. “In reality, their criminal tactics were straight out of the Ponzi scheme playbook so that they could cheat their investors and line their own pockets.”