> While we have informed users that there are no absolute guarantees against risks
I'm... uh.... fairly certain this was not the crux of their marketing which severly downplayed the underlying risk. There is also a huge spectrum between "we cannot guarantee that there is 0 risk" (which seems to be what the above sentence is saying), and "there exists a risk that all of your funds disappears in 24 hours".
It seems like there is some serious rewriting of history going on here.
Question though, do the founders here have any potential criminal liability from this whole situation (including apparently lying about what they were doing with their customers funds)?
>How long do you expect users can earn such high yields?
>The basis for Stablegains' rate is Anchor Protocol's yield. At the time of writing, Anchor yield is set at 18% - 20% APY and expected to remain so for a long time.
>We expect the rates of open finance protocols to beat those of traditional finance for a very long time.
Both of those were good to, but I didn't include them because both are either "expectations", or a reference to someone else's expectation/statement, and are not definitive statements.
I can tell you right now that there is absolutely no safe yield in crypto currently that goes beyond 4% on a “safe” stablecoin like USDC. For truly safe (as in, huge value locked, never been hacked), the yield is more like 1.5-2%
All the high yield is in algoponzis or new protocols that carry massive protocol risk
Eh, there are CeFi lenders like BlockFi/Gemini offering 7%. It's not zero risk, but the loans are partly collateralized and the borrowers are institutional entities who aren't your everyday scammer. It's better than unsecured corporate bonds in my view.
Thank you! I was looking for that image (which I'd seen before) but couldn't find it.
Will be interesting to hear the argument "Well technically there were no surprises here, because customers should not be surprised when they lose all their money investing in risky assets. Therefore, technically, we did not lie."
Well 15% monthly woud be ~535% annual and at that point you're well past "highly unlikely" and into "I'm printing money in my 20k sqft basement" territory.
Dont rely on any websites & webpages existing like this link.
I can show you links where even the Wayback machine has removed content, most people will know how Google Cache has removed content, so print all copies and have hard copies safely stored away where they cant be destroyed. Houses will be broken into in order to destroy evidence, I know I've had it done to me!
This may be your only chance to out the criminals that run the world!
>Houses will be broken into in order to destroy evidence, I know I've had it done to me!
>This may be your only chance to out the criminals that run the world!
Given that the screenshot is an (instagram?) ad, there's probably such a huge papertrail that can be subpoenaed that you don't have to worry about the founder breaking into your house to destroy the only copy of the marketing materials.
>Question though, do the founders here have any potential criminal liability from this whole situation (including apparently lying about what they were doing with their customers funds)?
While they're not exactly forthcoming with the risks, their marketing pages[1] were also careful to not make any explicit claims of safety (eg. "your principal is protected", or "you won't lose money"). The most that they claimed were "stable" returns. For good measure there's also a disclaimer mentioning the risks.
>There is a range of safeguards in place to help secure your deposits, however holding and depositing stablecoins with Stablegains and third party lending platforms still carries significant risk. Please carefully read our Terms of Use and Risk disclosures in our Learning Center before making a deposit. Any deposit with Stablegains and third party lending platforms is entirely your responsibility. You understand that your principal is at risk.
Until they are given notice of a judicial proceedings, they don't have an obligation to retain evidence. (There is an exception that doesn't appear to apply here.)
I'm... uh.... fairly certain this was not the crux of their marketing which severly downplayed the underlying risk. There is also a huge spectrum between "we cannot guarantee that there is 0 risk" (which seems to be what the above sentence is saying), and "there exists a risk that all of your funds disappears in 24 hours".
It seems like there is some serious rewriting of history going on here.
Question though, do the founders here have any potential criminal liability from this whole situation (including apparently lying about what they were doing with their customers funds)?