Hacker News

770 readers

307 users here now

Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.

The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.

founded 5 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

126

Donald Trump supporters lose $12B after his meme coin collapses (www.uniladtech.com)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

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"?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

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.