<div class="text-justify">

Coming across this [article,](https://www.news.com.au/technology/john-mcafee-indicted-on-fraud-and-money-laundering-charges/news-story/bec490155a204514c1f0f93ff1879223) I can't help to think that John McAfee is being made an example of, as a message to others that might be doing the same - Namely, *Elon Musk.*

![image.png](https://images.hive.blog/DQmedtCueYVcoD4pKHwBEfVfRQT4og8USvsv6GGfci3zgj8/image.png)

The article is about McAfee being charged with fraud and money laundering, on top of the tax evasion charges levelled against him earlier. The fraud is about his Tweets promoting crypto currencies in what are essentially pump-and-dump schemes. Fair enough?

I'll be honest, I only skimmed the article as I really don't care that much about McAfee, but I do find at least one aspect of this story worth questioning.

>“Additionally, they allegedly used the same social media platform to promote the sale of digital tokens on behalf of ICO issuers without disclosing to investors the compensation they were receiving to tout these securities on behalf of the ICO.

>“McAfee and Watson used social media to perpetrate an age-old pump-and-dump scheme that earned them nearly two million dollars,” said FBI Assistant Director William Sweeney Jr.

Now, I am not getting into the legality or ethics of this at all and I don't know the history of all that McAfee has said, but I remember him shilling Doge - but that isn't a security. They are still arguing over what constitutes a security in crypto afaik. 

Which makes the second quote connected too, as if they aren't promoting a security - what are they promoting? And if it isn't a security, are the people investing actually investors? 

If the token does something or claims it will do something, doesn't that make it a product - and if so, isn't shilling it advertising? Also, if it is a product of some kind with utility, than the invested in it are like business people saying that their company product is good - isn't it? After all, it does affect investor sentiment when a celebrity CEO does a product launch party and it does make them buy.

There seems to be a lot of double standards in the mix when it comes to the iron-clad laws and I think articles like this are designed to firstly, turn people off crypto and secondly, curb the behaviors of celebrities looking to advertise their position, like Elon Musk, when Tesla announced its purchase (which it had to do) knowing full well the price will spike on the news. Even if they didn't sell immediately, investor sentiment is being driven by these kinds of announcements and they will benefit as the entire market rallies in behind.  

And, he knew Doge would spike too. 
Had he bought, did he sell, is the real shill still to come?

My point is, that with the power of social media and the increasing complexity of what exactly constitutes an investment or an investor, everything is going to have to change in order to bring things into alignment. If the legislation tries to freeze out new economic tools that are available to the masses, they will lose all control - if they open the floodgates and see what happens, people will quickly recognize the superiority of the new tools for them to gain access to wealth and well-being that they had been closed out of by elites through design and legislation and then, the revolution speeds up and - they lose control. 

I think that the best they can do is what they do with anything that threatens them but they can't kill - undermine it, create FUD, mudsling and use whatever they can to intimidate those involved to slow down the march of change until they can combat it or, take advantage themselves.

I suspect due to the potential, they want to take advantage. 

It is going to get interesting and I really hope that what ends up happening is that people realize that 

- they are the economic powerhouse and don't need the current economy
- the current economy is engineered so they will increasingly suffer
- the governments are part of the systematic failure
- the government is financed by the people

Governance is needed, not governments, at least in the form they currently take. When economic activity is peer-to-peer and cuts out a lot of the borders, the relevance of national government diminishes a lot, as does the willingness of the people to fund the very organization that restricts them economically. While order and organization are needed, the current mechanisms are fundamentally flawed and need to be replaced, not refurbished.

The replacement of an economy can't be bought, it has to be built.


Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]



</div>
  


Posted Using [LeoFinance <sup>Beta</sup>](https://leofinance.io/@tarazkp/a-warning-to-elon-and-us-all)