Trump promoted a soon-to-launch, Trump Organization crypto platform to his 7.5 million followers on Truth Social.
  • Snapz@lemmy.worldEnglish
    27·
    23 days ago

    Next test of the cult… are you fucking people actually about to line up to trust your financial future to dumb dumb eric trump and sniff sniff don Jr?

    • Azal@pawb.socialEnglish
      2·
      22 days ago

      Personally I hope so. They’re burning the world, it’ll at least be fun to watch them flounder in the process.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
        3·
        22 days ago

        Except the Trumps get rich off of it. I don’t know if the stupid people losing out so the rich assholes can gain is ideal for me. I’d rather the stupid people keep their money.

  • Ultraviolet@lemmy.worldEnglish
    55·
    23 days ago

    “For too long, the average American has been squeezed by the big banks and financial elites,” Trump wrote. “It’s time we take a stand — together.”

    Do people actually believe for a fraction of a second that Donald Trump of all people is on the side of the average American? And that the way to “take a stand” is with a crypto pump and dump scheme?

  • Freefall@lemmy.worldEnglish
    17·
    22 days ago

    Up next, an innovative new sales technique. Get this, it is called Multi-level Marketing. Brand new, never been done before!

    I bet the same morons that got his NFTs fall for this…the SAME PEOPLE (the ones that still have money left).

  • aesthelete@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    23 days ago

    Now they’re defiant? I thought the whole thing was that they were the silent majority or some bullshit.

    I knew serial conman Trump couldn’t resist getting involved in crypto which is one of the biggest cons of all time.

    • IcePee@lemmy.beru.coEnglish
      15·
      23 days ago

      I would say the fiat money system is the biggest con, at least by volume. What with all the quantitative easing and fractional reserve banking.

        • IcePee@lemmy.beru.coEnglish
          11·
          14 days ago

          I think I didn’t make myself clear. When I said “by volume” I meant was the amount of value the different systems hold and the amount of if not outright fraud, negative aspects of the systems. The fiat money systems’ money supply has a fundamental weakness, it can be created out of thin air so is constantly loosing value. Think of all the investment vehicles or other assets that tie themselves to this loosing value asset. Trillions in USD. And what’s it all backed by? Ultimately guns. Well most crypto currency is backed by maths and no matter how many guns you point at it, you cannot make 2+2= anything other than 4.

          • aesthelete@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            14 days ago

            Well most crypto currency is backed by maths and no matter how many guns you point at it, you cannot make 2+2= anything other than 4.

            Sure, you can make one type of coin or other rare or rate limited or whatever, but you can also just make up a different shit coin and give yourself a metric shit ton of that new coin, and then eventually try to move to either a more stable coin or back into fiat once you’ve gotten enough suckers holding the bag to exit.

            That makes crypto ultimately not based on maths at all, but based on hype, stupidity, and scams alone.

            • IcePee@lemmy.beru.coEnglish
              11·
              13 days ago

              The main difference between these “shit coins” and fiat is once the shit coin scammers eventually pull the rug, they cannot just print more of that coin. Fiat scammers can just print more of that currency.

              But in both situations one does need to look at the economics of the coins, and the priors of the people in control.

              • aesthelete@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                13 days ago

                “Once they’ve completed the scam they have to move onto other scams.”

                Are you even thinking at all when constructing these arguments?

                • IcePee@lemmy.beru.coEnglish
                  11·
                  13 days ago

                  What I am trying to get through to you is, just like how the LIBOR scandal doesn’t implicate fiat, scammy crypto projects doesn’t implicate crypto. My criticism of fiat is it’s fundamental systemic weaknesses. It seems your criticism of crypto is it’s used by scammers. A criticism that, incidentally can also be levied at fiat.

  • RegalPotoo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    22 days ago

    So politics aside, would you really put any money into a financial system run by someone with a proven track record of driving businesses into bankruptcy?

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      113·
      23 days ago

      What’s wrong with owning a clothing line as president? As long as they’re not using their office to impact their business in any meaningful way, I have no issues at all with it. So before taking the oath of President, you should be required to demonstrate that you have removed yourself from any obligations or loyalties you may have (so appoint someone to take care of your company(s) and whatnot).

      As long as decisions made by the company have zero relationship to the actions of the President, I’m fine with it. And Congress and the Supreme Court should have some checks against that (i.e. Congress should be able to set rules for the President through legislation, and the Supreme Court should be able to review executive actions and force divestment if there’s evidence of bias).

      I despise Trump, but let’s not be hasty.

      • The Pantser@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        23 days ago

        Ok and the currency? That undermines the currency of the country he is serving. What if Biden came out with Biden Bucks you think he wouldn’t be attacked from every angle?

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          14·
          23 days ago

          He’d be attacked, but not by me. Likewise for Harris or anyone else running for President. I’d call it stupid and probably scammy, but I wouldn’t suggest that it somehow undermines the US.

          If Trump’s crypto platform or “Biden Bucks” or whatever takes off enough that it threatens the national currency, then perhaps we should be using it instead of the national currency. Competition is good, and we shouldn’t be using a currency just because the government wants control, we should be using it because it provides value. In the case of the dollar, that value is stability and ubiquity, and if Trump, Harris, or anyone else can do it better than the Federal Reserve, perhaps we should all be using that instead of the dollar. I highly doubt that’s the case, but it certainly doesn’t affect someone’s eligibility to run for President.

          That said, they should divest themselves of any controlling interest in anything that could impact their role as President. That means handing off control to someone else, and ensuring that someone else doesn’t have any way to impact your decisions.

      • irotsoma@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        22 days ago

        A politician should not be allowed to own something they have the explicit power to artificially inflate the value of. For the president, that’s all businesses.

        As for currency, again, the president has the ability to crash the value of the American currency and drive people to his currency in order to artificially inflate it. Sacrificing an entire global economy for personal gain should not be possible.

        But not only is it possible, now with the recent Supreme Court ruling, he’d be immune to prosecution for doing it, so why wouldn’t he do it?

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          21·
          22 days ago

          artificially inflate the value of

          That’s where there should be a requirement to demonstrate that you have removed yourself from any conflicts of interest. Trump didn’t do that (at least not in a way that’s satisfactory to me), and I think there should be a change to the qualifications for President that includes some level of divestiture.

          the president has the ability to crash the value of the American currency

          But the President doesn’t really have the power to do that. The Federal Reserve does (and there’s a lot of legal barriers between the President and the Fed) and Congress does, but the President can’t directly crash the value of the dollar. Look at Trump’s campaign, he says he should have direct control over the Fed, not that he does. Making that change would be a big deal that would piss a lot of people off.

          The Supreme Court immunity ruling is absolutely dangerous and Congress should fix that ASAP, but that doesn’t mean the President can go devalue the currency on their own. That’s just not how things work. The closest they can do is attempt to fire board members of the Federal Reserve and appoint new ones that would hopefully listen to them, and that would be challenged by the Supreme Court. According to the ruling, they’d be immune from making the attempt, but that doesn’t mean the attempt can just go through w/o review.

          • irotsoma@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            22 days ago

            But Trump believes that all executive branch employees are directly reportable to him and he forced out and refused to replace many employees. Also, there is Schedule F. Trump didn’t have enough time to fully implement it the first time. This removed employees are n “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating” positions from the General Schedule. Meaning they were political appointees going forward. Biden rescinded it immediately so it never got used, but it will be reimplemented.

            With that, he has the power to implement almost anything without oversight. When he implements his tariffs for example, and other countries retaliate with their own, the value of American goods will plummet since they’ll be way more expensive. This will reduce trade and thus the value of the currency. And no amount of tweaks to interest rates will stop that.

            Sure he can’t print money, but the reliability ratings of US debt are already declining due to the fights over the debt ceiling, and Trump supports that fight and doesn’t believe that the US should have to pay those debts because of the investments we’ve made. Simply blocking those payments could tank the currency. There are tons of ways if there’s no legal consequences and most employees are replaced with his loyalists.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              22 days ago

              Trump believes that all executive branch employees are directly reportable to him

              Sort of, he believes they should be, not that they are. He wants to replace merit-based positions with appointments, which means he can more easily replace them as needed.

              When he implements his tariffs for example, and other countries retaliate with their own, the value of American goods will plummet

              The value of American goods is irrelevant. We’re not a net exporter, and our most valuable trade partners (Canada, Mexico, EU) would likely get exceptions.

              Tariffs would hurt imports and result in more purchases of local goods, which increases demand for labor while decreasing purchasing power (i.e. inflation), but then we’d respond with higher borrowing rates, which decreases labor demand and fewer total purchases of goods, etc. The short-term impact is a spike in labor demand, but the longer term impact is slower growth. It’s a bad policy, but it’s not so inflationary that the dollar would lose value, the average American would just become worse off. We need the dollar to be stable because we need it to remain the main international reserve currency, and we’re absolutely willing to let the average consumer suffer to keep that status.

              Simply blocking those payments could tank the currency

              I guess he could theoretically veto a budget, but Congress would likely pass it anyway. He doesn’t have that much control over his own party, and doing that would piss off voters enough that they’d likely lose in the midterms. It’s not going to happen, the fight over the debt ceiling is for concessions, and politicians will concede to prevent default.

              if there’s no legal consequences

              There has pretty much never been legal consequences for the President, the only thing the Supreme Court decision does is say the quiet part out loud. We’ll put on a show for things like Clinton’s affair or whatever, but not for anything of consequence. The law is scary, but Presidents have largely been immune from legal consequences for pretty much the entire history of the US.

        • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          1·
          22 days ago

          What about black, red, and white? Maybe the black part is a catchy symbol? We can turn it a bit so it’s not copyright infringement.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            22 days ago

            Can just replace it with an S rune, it’s not copyrighted. With another rune, so it will be “US” and “undefeatable” shortened at the same time. In white circle, on red background.

  • NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    105·
    23 days ago

    Oh, now I should get into crypto. I’ve just been waiting for someone publicly convicted of multiple counts of fraud to start up a platform so I can pour all my money into that.