Conversation

. hits back HARD at the WSJ article from last week, ending with this: "...and we’d suggest the WSJ change their title to be more accurate and objective: “Less than 2/10th of 1% of ShapeShift’s business might be illicit.” DAMN, talk about a response. However...
Quote Tweet
💡 Shining Light on the @WSJ's Attack on ShapeShift and #Crypto 📝Via: @ErikVoorhees bit.ly/2OsZpZ1
Image
3
11
41
Unfortunately, the damage is largely done. The intentions of the accused journalists as well as Shapeshift's vision are irrelevant to a regulator. If there’s one thing guaranteed to get a regulator’s attention, it’s a front-page article in the WSJ.
3
3
18
Replying to and
I agree that comparing crypto exchanges to banks on a global scale is ridiculous, but don’t think this can arise to “criminal negligence”. Unlike a person, a company generally can’t sue for slander or defamation (bc companies don’t have “feelings”). Like I said, shitty situation.
1
1
Katherine - please don’t further the fake news with posts flippantly claiming Shapeshift has done something wrong or illegal. You seem to be basing this only on the fake WSJ story. It’s reckless and harmful.
2
3
Show replies