> A review of songs mentioning Cash App shows that the artists are not generally rapping about Cash App’s smooth user interface and robust software integration toolkit.
> Instead, lyrics describe how easy it is to move money through Cash App to facilitate fraud, traffic drugs, or even pay for murder.
If you're fucking wealthy, it's also very easy to move money for fraud, drugs, murder, literally anything. They just don't use the Cash App
It is not an an attack. Neither is it an "attack".
Nobody got hurt, nobody needs stitches, nobody was in fear for their life, autonomy, or well-being. Nobody brandished weapons, nobody damaged physical objects. That is why it is not an attack.
In modern parlance people started calling it an "attack" when someone was ever slo slightly mean to them. I think this usage is contemptible and should be called out. It devalues the meaning of the word. If a market participant publishing research is now an attack then what will you call when someone throws a punch and breaks a nose, or douses someone with gasoline and lights them on fire, or fires an intercontinental ballistic missile at a city?
Coming soon: the CashApp ransomware API.
This sounds disingenuous. Not every fan of Bitcoin supports fraud, drug trafficking.. etc. The dollar is used for such bad activities, should we label everyone that loves the dollar as a supporter of fraud and drugs?
> Misleading investors by overstating its genuine user counts, with former employees estimating as much as three quarters are “fake, involved in fraud, or…additional accounts tied to a single individual.”
Do they really know? Or is it just a feeling that they have, or a rumour somebody spread? Is it a rumour a former disgruntled employee blew up out of proportion?
The risk to the short seller is clear, but if they're going to advertise themselves as a "new breed of short sellers, relying on deep research", then they should come up with deep research, not this. Of all the things listed, I didn't see one thing that is based on any real data. They obviously hold clout because if I came up with this, the market wouldn't really care.
But maybe it can't really be fixed, don't know. Maybe the short seller is the fraud and it needs to take down several companies before people realize it's BS and eventually gets wiped out.
[0]: https://investors.block.xyz/news/news-details/2023/Blocks-Re...
Block has systematically taken advantage of the demographics it claims to be helping. The “magic” behind Block’s business has not been disruptive innovation, but rather the company’s willingness to facilitate fraud against consumers and the government, avoid regulation, dress up predatory loans and fees as revolutionary technology, and mislead investors with inflated metrics.
I do not know if that is fraud, but if so, Hindenburg should pay attention.
BTW, this was done in Superman, and used to build an [evil] AGI. Of course, that is just science fiction. Just to be sure though, is Square a partner in OpenAI?
Hindenburg criticized the ability for a user to get a debit card by mail in any name but that is a form of KYC. It is true many companies including PayPal don’t force you to provide your social security number. But the user can still be tracked.
I have never provided my social security number or face or ID to Venmo, PayPal or Cash App.
And the name I use on all those accounts is not my legal name. I do pay my taxes, I don’t commit crimes and it’s the name I use in real life and on social media.
This is more an attack on privacy rights and easy access to financial services. If fraud happens, law enforcement should prosecute. Don’t punish the lawful consumer.
Hindenburg’s just a more sophisticated scammer who apparently made $5 million off this trade-
https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/163897860486766592...
Not sure I understood you correctly, but this is the opposite of KYC.
Jack doesn't do anything but meditate and grow a beard like he's young Steve Jobs. Why the board let him be CEO when he didn't do any apparent work is a different question.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-01/musk-sued...
Full disclosure: I'm heavily invested in SQ.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/western-union-admits-anti-mon...
I’m surprised that it’s legal to short sell then go on the attack. If it is, imagine having the cojones to do that and then go live with this report.
This is why the report is surgical in its wording.
(And in case someone argues that this is the same as anything else, it isn't. I own an iPhone. I recommend them to people, it works well etc. I don't benefit at all from Apple stock price going up.)
Personally, I used to be quite antagonistic to shortsellers, but at least the ones holding onto the principles of journalistic integrity and good research provide good value to society. Just look at Wirecard.
Which ones don't provide value to society, and how do they differ from shills with a long position?
Of course, then came Terra Luna, FTX, and all that shebang, and Block wasn't the hot name it was anymore.
Yesterday. But today is a good second choice.
Right now, the financial system is extremely unstable - bad actors with an awful lot of exposure have been exposed, and a lot of people are like sharks in the water, smelling blood. It looks like we're due for another come-to-Jesus moment in the banking scene, they haven't learned enough from 2008.
I think it looks like they learned a lot! I.e. make sure you get too big to fail.
“Well, it’s the safest way, isn’t it?”
"apps" that do nothing more than transfer money two parties, representing 0 innovation and doing nothing new are valued in the 10's - 100's billions.
