HN Reader

Why are the authors so aggressive in using scam/fraud/etc terms when discussing the crime, but then spend so little time explaining the defense? This article seems wildly one sided and I’m not a fan of how it’s written.

It looks like both of the author just do clickbait articles - their last ~10 articles are solely about “diddy”.

Am I wrong if this feels like high frequency trading bots here, doing their own dubious things (within the bounds of the law, but not the spirit), got baited into doing something stupid and someone smarter took advantage of that stupidity. It's a fun game to watch.

I feel like our discussions of whether this was fraud or not - in the practical and ethical sense, if not the legal one - hinges entirely on the details of what these guys did, details that are not present in the article.

So not only are we not lawyers, we're barely even readers.

> wants deregulation

> gets deregulation

"b-bu-but no not like this"

Reminds me of this recent court case in Germany.

https://www.heise.de/en/news/Higher-Regional-Court-Virtual-t...

It's gonna be difficult to explain why they were looking for lawyers, laundering, and statutes of limitations, if they didn't think they were doing anything wrong.

I'm not a lawyer but it seems like if they booked a transaction based on a basket of goods, and then seconds later changed that basket of goods, seems like in the physical world that would be fraud

What does it mean to steal crypto if "code is law"?