There are cryptocurrency concerns as President Donald Trump's $TRUMP meme coin has lost 80% of its value and cost investors over $12 billion in losses.
When the coin is created it’s worth fractions of a cent. So the people who buy the coin aren’t paying a bribe; they are collaborating on the future rug pull.
This is just semantics if the result is that the money gets to its destination. I’m assuming much of the trading for this happened on an AMM, which is like a two way vending machine. You put money in to get some memecoins, and that same money can be extracted by doing the reverse. The liquidity is normally controlled by the people who made the coin anyway. A perfectly functional method for paying a bribe.
This is also all happening in public on a ledger than will forever been public. So it’s literally the stupidest place to do a bribe.
I don’t know if there are actually people paying bribes this way, or if they consider it the best method, but it would make sense because a thin veneer of deniability would be more than enough in this case, and its public verifiable nature could help them get credit for it. How would anyone be getting in legal trouble for bribery because they bought this thing and “lost” money on it, it’s just not happening in the current political climate. Holding the worthless tokens in a wallet publicly associated with them would serve as a receipt they could point to, to demonstrate loyalty.
Liquidity isn’t a mechanism for facilitating bribes, it’s just isnt.
I really do not know what more to say here. it is clear to me that you do not understand or rather do not want to understand because you’ve already decided you know.
This is why I was flippant in my intial responses. I was quite certain you would remained convinced of your own fantasy. It takes very little knowledge of markets to see the flaws in what you want to be true.
Liquidity isn’t a mechanism for facilitating bribes, it’s just isnt.
I explain how it could be, and all you got in response is ad hominem rhetoric. How about instead of implying you know more than me about markets and what knowledge of them implies, you actually refute the point without phrases like “it just isn’t”?
This is just semantics if the result is that the money gets to its destination. I’m assuming much of the trading for this happened on an AMM, which is like a two way vending machine. You put money in to get some memecoins, and that same money can be extracted by doing the reverse. The liquidity is normally controlled by the people who made the coin anyway. A perfectly functional method for paying a bribe.
I don’t know if there are actually people paying bribes this way, or if they consider it the best method, but it would make sense because a thin veneer of deniability would be more than enough in this case, and its public verifiable nature could help them get credit for it. How would anyone be getting in legal trouble for bribery because they bought this thing and “lost” money on it, it’s just not happening in the current political climate. Holding the worthless tokens in a wallet publicly associated with them would serve as a receipt they could point to, to demonstrate loyalty.
Liquidity isn’t a mechanism for facilitating bribes, it’s just isnt.
I really do not know what more to say here. it is clear to me that you do not understand or rather do not want to understand because you’ve already decided you know.
This is why I was flippant in my intial responses. I was quite certain you would remained convinced of your own fantasy. It takes very little knowledge of markets to see the flaws in what you want to be true.
I explain how it could be, and all you got in response is ad hominem rhetoric. How about instead of implying you know more than me about markets and what knowledge of them implies, you actually refute the point without phrases like “it just isn’t”?
I have refuted the concept that this is a method for bribing. I already did it.
There is nothing let to discuss.
You asked me to explain. I did. You completely ignored what I said.
You didn’t ask for more clarification. You just said you think it’s still possible.
I’d would be a fool to not see that as a wtf moment.