this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
153 points (98.1% liked)

Folderol

97 readers
1 users here now


From Cambridge Dictionary:

unnecessary actions or words that have little meaning and make something seem more important or complicated than it really is


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Now that is how you run a proper scam.

Take notes, kids!

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 35 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The only thing that could make this better is if he was completely AI generated: image, and Voice, everything.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 6 points 8 months ago

What do you mean "if"?

[–] Perilous@lemmynsfw.com 28 points 8 months ago

I have to admit, I kind of admire the ballsiness of this scam. It's a mish mash of Madoff, crypto grifters and holo live in an unholy pursuit of insane wealth.

[–] CrzyRusski@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Maybe he's just from Canada?

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

He goes to a different exchange, you wouldn't know him

[–] DavidGarcia@feddit.nl 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

since corporations are legal persons, can a corporation be a CEO?

[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

CEO? No, I think the officer part requires a human being. But legal entities can own other legal entities. Not sure how deep one can make the rabbit hole go, though.

[–] Overzeetop@sopuli.xyz 2 points 8 months ago

This is why (well, one reason) we need corporate taxes to be gross receipts. Layers of shell companies would still be legal, but every layer re-applies tax to every dollar transferred between entities. Want corporate protections? Pay for every layer.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

How deep is a circle?

[–] ArtieShaw@kbin.social 12 points 8 months ago

This is delightful. The whole thing is worth a read, but I want to leave this here.

In 2022, a writer... attempted to raise a red flag, noting that all three of the celebrities (Wozniak, Chuck Norris, and Lance Bass) who endorsed Reece Lewis declined to confirm ever knowing him

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

He’s like a hedge fund Mysterio

Wait, did we finally track down Andy Dufresne's "silent silent partner"?

[–] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because, maybe, all crypto is FAKE?!!?

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And the U.S. Dollar is...real?

Fact is crypto coins can be used as money and that what makes it money.

[–] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Yes. It is real.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 8 months ago

🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

Click here to see the summaryFor years, rumors spread on social media that Steven Reece Lewis, the chief executive officer of a now-shuttered cryptocurrency hedge fund called HyperVerse, was a "fake person" who "doesn't exist."

Fanning out their search, The Guardian uncovered no LinkedIn account for Reece Lewis "or any Internet presence other than HyperVerse promotional material."

Celebrities and influencers, including Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, endorsed Reece Lewis as a strong leader for the HyperVerse.

In 2022, a writer for the British tabloid called The Mirror, Andrew Penman, attempted to raise a red flag, noting that all three of the celebrities (Wozniak, Chuck Norris, and Lance Bass) who endorsed Reece Lewis declined to confirm ever knowing him.

None of the famous figures has ever confirmed that they've met or spoken to Reece Lewis, the Guardian reported, suggesting that it was possible that all three may have been hired to do the marketing videos through Cameo.

While his identity remains in question, his pinned tweet has a link to a promo video for the HyperVerse, with a caption that reads, "where reality ends and imagination begins."


Saved 74% of original text.

[–] thesmokingman@programming.dev 3 points 8 months ago

Chainalysis consumer losses in 2022 were estimated to exceed $1.3 billion. Thousands of consumers lost millions, The Guardian reported.

These two statements are problematic. If thousands (plural) lost millions (plural), the smallest number of consumers would be 2000 and the smallest amount of money be 2000000. This means, at a minimum, consumers would have lost at least 4000000000 (4bil is 2000 2mils). If thousands lost millions, we can say total losses exceed 1.3bil. If total losses exceed 1.3bil, we cannot necessarily say thousands lost millions as, at most, that figure supports 650 people losing a maximum of 2mil.