Conversation

This isn't just about NFTs. It's about every transaction: houses, cars, art, watches, shoes, comic books, any collectible, store of value or investment. Forget DYOR, inspections, appraisals. If you don't have 100% info overlap, trading is illegal. Impossible standard, bad policy.

Quote Tweet

e𝚔𝚒n

@eking0x

· Jun 3

“This isn’t being brought as an insider trading case, it’s a wire fraud case. Yet the government misleadingly describes this as insider trading because they know that buzzword will generate headlines,” @JWVerret tells me in this @motherboard @VICE piece: vice.com/en/article/ake

Show this thread

119

Jesse Powell

@jespow

Jun 5

I guess the objection is that Nate knew that the asset was scheduled to be featured before he bought, and before the ad was public. But how were other traders disadvantaged by this? Nate had no material info about the asset itself, just that it was going to get extra attention.

Arthur B.

@ArthurB

Jun 5

The actual victim is OpenSea as a company since it missed out on either offering more attractive prices to its users or capitalizing on the value-add it featuring pieces yielded.

Jesse Powell

@jespow

Replying to

@ArthurB

Hm. Is that OS’s actual claim? Are NFTs a vebelen good? Do we know that OS itself didn’t buy before Nate? If so, Nate’s buy would have helped the company. Was selling advance listing intel a business for OS? Would there be no crime if OS didn’t feel like it lost any value?

9:35 AM · Jun 5, 2022Twitter for iPhone

Replying to

I have no idea what OpenSea claims, it's not really my place to say whether or not they should pursue him, but I do think it's a lot more coherent to see them as the damaged party in this story.