Nugg Club

Hello friend. It sure has been a while. I know that the world may seem scary right now but don't you worry, it's going to get way worse very soon. And if those words mean nothing to you I want to give you hope. An idea so revolutionary that it may solve all of the world's problems in one fell swoop. Please, follow me on a magical journey that may or may not restore your faith in humanity. Prologue Every good story needs a background so before I show you the gates of Heaven on Earth you deserve a crash course on history. Please don't mind all of the poor people. They gambled away their life savings on jpegs and should have known better. Now.. where was I... Oh right! The glorious history of the crypto revolution. I already told you about our so we should just skip to the fun part. growthacking legends The year is 2020, the online world completely forgot about viruses and millennium bugs, our cyber security was peaking but we somehow forgot to check on the viruses in the reality simulator. As soon as we turned our back a few guys in China made a mess and shortly after everyone was locked in their homes indefinitely. As all responsible citizens in this world, we didn't think much about it and we obviously trusted our governments to solve this annoying issue while we keep building financial freedom for everyone. It took them a while but eventually, they figured it out. I have no idea how we didn't think of this sooner but the answer was obvious from the beginning - print free money and no one will need to leave the house. Genius when you think about it. Government airdrops were claimed monthly in most parts of the world and since so much capital had to go somewhere the tech world responded with another genius idea. Stock trading for everyone! A child from Romania fulfilled his life-long dream and brought financial freedom into the hands of American teenagers. The solution was so amazing that even the trading fees were nonexistant. The kids got it better than the Wall Street folk. Vlad didn't really anticipate that so many young people will want to participate in stock trading because he apparently never used and before he realized that these kids actually have a working brain in their skull it was too late. Reddit They instantly liked only one stock and while buying it like crazy they started doing research on the financial markets. Very soon after they realized that behind all of the complicated terms and numbers no one understands lies one simple principle. . So they kept buying. Buyers > Sellers = price go up Vlad was so happy his new customers like the stock he wanted to . Turns out this will be a historical move that changes the trading game forever. prevent them from buying more A Brave New World News about Vlad being the bad guy that works for the bankers induced a burning rage inside every Redditor's hearth. They liked the stock but they didn't like that the game was rigged. One thing lead to another and they all ended up in /r/bitcoin and /r/cryptocurrency. What they found there came as a surprise. The market never closes, buzzwords like "decentralization" and "freedom" are all over the place, you are your own bank, Bitcoin is actually Jesus in disguise, poor people can gamble with free money thanks to 125x leverage ( of course), banking the unbanked... brought to you by Binance Even CZ was ashamed of how much money these poor souls were losing every second so he did the only right thing he could do. He lowered the leverage to 100x. It may sound scary for these new crypto soldiers but this is their first contact with real volatility. Let them get burnt a few times, they will learn eventually. And they did. After they did some math they realized that everyone made money with Bitcoin because they bought it for pennies. Bright minds don't need too much time to figure out this new game so they started buying everything and anything that costs less than a dollar and gave meaning to the term in the process. Who knew that penny stocks can be digital eh? unit bias Some hit the jackpot, some got rugged, some got straight up robbed but it wasn't all for nothing. Maybe they can't make an educated guess on the next big crypto but they all have one thing in common, don't they? Who here doesn't like dogs? The prophet has spoken and thus the prophecy slowly unfolded. OG crypto enthusiasts sat in confusion watching the clueless dog slowly taking over the world. This whole time we offered them decentralization, speed, security, and freedom but all they wanted was a dog with a fluctuating price tag. It was that simple. And since insanity already hit the crypto streets our master wizard saw an opportunity. Capturing the new faces is easy. Show them the dog and they will show you the money. The problem was that a lot more money was sitting just across from his table so he decided to kick the hornet's nest. You can still feel the smell of burned skin in the ETH community. Their rage was spilling all over social media and no one was safe. $150 transactions on a decentralized chain are better than paying $0.15 for an entry on a centralized spreadsheet. We all knew that but when you are broke you will even agree on using the second-best Ethereum, even if the label says that it was made in China. The war continued but with little success for freedom fighters. The Binance Spread Sheet chain didn't even care about victory. Capital started flowing in, CeDeFi became a forgotten term and anything that is used with Metamask instantly became Decentralized Finance. Luckily for us, while the bombs were falling and hackers were hacking, people had bigger problems outside of our bubble. The money supply kept growing, inflation fears lingered in the air but the FED ensured us that the crisis is transitory. That was good news because we were slowly getting sick of these new people the government was sending our way. The money they brought in wasn't worth the stupidity that accompanied it. So we started annoying Wall Street. The best of the best in our marketing department came up with the perfect solution. A safe currency that will definitely go to the Moon. Just shut up and give us your money before V 2.0 comes out. Fear, Uncertainty and Clout It was little known that we already domesticated some great names from the tradfi world. The big brains of investing knew that fresh money was coming so they welcomed them with open arms. If they did this to the stock market what could they do to our crypto bags? At first they didn't know what these newcomers want so they sat down and thought about it. Maybe a decentralized Twitter would sound great to them since they are censured on Reddit? That's what they are all pissed about, right? CLOUT Now that is a big word on Twitter. If you have that bluebird clout you are the voice of reason in the sea of stupidity. And our boy Chamath has a ton of it. Let's give these kids a home and let's name that home using the best buzzwords we can come up with. Since they like Bitcoin and want clout... You see where this is going... The trick is to cram as many of those buzzwords as you can in 160 characters. If you can also somehow make a case that it is the next Bitcoin that would be wonderful. As BitClout slowly started to fade into total irrelevancy the kids turned to their favorite YouTubers for something more simple and less technical. Of course Logan has something to suggest. He just can't stop making money so just copy trade this champ and earn your financial freedom the easy way. Do I even have to show you the chart? Influencers ran wild with price predictions that would make you immagine the best possible life for you and your family. Bitcoin to $20 Million a pop? You got it! XRP to $589? Why the hell not? It is sad to see that these reasonable price projections created between the best crypto educators in the space. I hope they sorted that out though. a feud As you can see our hosts had everything under control so we just kept building and assumed that they will take care of new money. It took us years but our best product yet is finally here and everyone is talking about it. An idea so insane it made Zucc rename his data collection service to . A completely new universe that will make every kid happy and every shareholder rich. Meta Welcome to the Metaverse! Finally! Can you see how freaking amazing this place is? I mean I know that you can't actually see it but that's the whole point. It is a world where you can be anything as long as you have the money to pay for it. It is really not that expensive considering the circumstances these days. You will probably need a few hundred grand for a crypto punk, some more to get into the Bored Ape Yacht club, a few grand to cover the transaction fees, a mil or two if you want to buy a really nice house and a billion or two if you want to purchase some land from Mark Cuban. Sorry about that. Ever since he figured out that kids can't rugg him on NFT land space he bought all of it... In general, you can get started in the metaverse with $2-3 billion. If you don't have that much we can offer you a loan at very reasonable rates but you will need to turn your apartment into an NFT and use that as collateral. If you really want to have some fun you can stake your car in the Tesla NFT staking pool and earn free electricity. If you look to your left you will see millions of gamers in the Pay-To-Learn section. We initially thought to call it Play-To-Earn but we were running out of money too fast. Why should we pay them when they can pay us, right? I know that the graphics quality isn't really that great but at least you can make money playing. A very good developer told me that we should get to Playstation 2 graphics before 2040 so I hope you don't mind waiting a decade or two. Once that tech hits crypto who knows... Maybe you will turn your Billions into Trillions. And maybe this all seems a bit rushed to you but if you can't see the potential in the metaverse you aren't a forward thinker. People will be able to work here instead of their boring desks at home. All they need is a VR headset and a little play money. Mark even said we won't need keyboards. Imagine that... I honestly hoped that you will be more thrilled to see the metaverse. Everyone is talking about it these days... Oh well... I guess I tried. If I don't refer another investor to the Cuban Mansion he will revoke my rights from walking in his virual park. I won't even be able to attend the party tonight because he bought all the tickets in 2020... Yeah... All of you new folk don't want to believe in a life-changing opportunity like we did. That's why you will all stay poor for the rest of your life. Unless... You know they said that inflation isn't transitory anymore? It is here to stay and unless you put your hard-earned dollars into a safe heaven it won't be worth much. Three words for you mate. You made me bring out the big guns this time. Dog Elon Mars My last offer. What do you say?

Metaverse: A Brave New World

USA v. Samuel Bankman-Fried Court Filing, retrieved on March 15, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 22 of 33. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here III. The Guidelines Do Not Overstate the Seriousness of the Offense Bankman-Fried argues that the fraud Guidelines are not based on empirical evidence and “substantially overstate the seriousness of the offense.” (Def. Mem. at 28). This argument is misguided for several reasons: the current fraud Guideline is the result of extensive and iterative work by the Sentencing Commission, and is based on sound policy choices, and even if the fraud Guidelines were overly reliant on loss as a general matter—a point the Government does not concede—they are an appropriate measure of the seriousness of the offense in this case. “One of the central reasons for creating the sentencing guidelines was to ensure stiffer penalties for white-collar crimes and to eliminate disparities between white-collar sentences and sentences for other crimes.” United States v. Davis, 537 F.3d 611, 617 (6th Cir. 2008). “[T]he sentencing guidelines sought to address the inequities of prior sentencing practices that tended to punish white collar economic crimes less severely than other comparable blue collar offenses.” Fishman, 631 F. Supp. 2d at 403. Over a five-year period between 1996 and 2001, the Commission engaged in a deliberative process to address the Guidelines’ treatment of white-collar offenses, with the involvement of relevant stakeholders including the defense bar, the Department of Justice, probation officers, and the U.S. Judicial Conference. See Federal Register Notice BAC2210-40, 62 Fed. Reg. 152, 171-74 (1997) (proposals by the Commission for comment regarding economic crime sentencing reform). The Commission explained that the resulting amendments, which became effective on November 1, 2001, were based on the determination that “loss serves as a measure of the seriousness of the offense and the defendant’s relative culpability.” Sentencing Guidelines for the United States Courts, 66 Fed. Reg. 30,512, 30,533 (June 6, 2001). Thus, the 2001 amendments to Section 2B1.1 reflected the considered view of the Commission, following a collaborative process with relevant stakeholders, that loss amount should be a central consideration in determining the seriousness of an offense to which that Guideline applies. Indeed, “[e]ven if the enhancements may lack robust empirical support related to deterrence, they have foundations in empirical data and national experience related to the goals of fair sentencing and retribution.” United States v. Moose, 893 F.3d 951, 958 (7th Cir. 2018). In 2002, following major corporate fraud at Enron, WorldCom, and Adelphia, Congress instructed the Commission to amend the Guidelines for white-collar crime again, this time as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and in response the Commission amended the modified loss-amount enhancement in Section 2B1.1 for high-loss cases — that is, cases involving loss amounts in excess of $200 million. See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Emergency Guidelines Amendments, 15 Fed. Sentencing Reporter 281, 283 (Apr. 1, 2003) (“[T]he amendment expands the loss table at §2B1.1(b)(1) to punish adequately offenses that cause catastrophic losses of magnitudes previously unforeseen, such as the serious corporate scandals that gave rise to several portions of the Act.”), available at 2003 WL 22016909. Thus, to the extent Section 2B1.1 emphasizes loss amount to the degree it does, that was an intentional decision by the Commission based on years of consideration and guidance from Congress. See Ebbers, 458 F.3d at 129 (“[T]he Guidelines reflect Congress’s judgment as to the appropriate national policy for [white collar] crimes.”). The few district court opinions cited by Bankman-Fried seem not to have considered the Commission and legislative history. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, No. 16 Cr. 457 (NGG), 2018 WL 1997975, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2018) (cited by Bankman-Fried for the incorrect proposition that “as far as [that] court can tell” the loss guidelines were not the “result from any reasoned determination”). The defendant’s argument otherwise draws on language from Judge Rakoff’s decision in United States v. Adelson, 441 F. Supp. 2d 506, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), Judge Block’s decision in United States v. Parris, 573 F. Supp. 2d 744, 753 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), and Judge Underhill’s concurrence in United States v. Corsey, 723 F.3d 366, 379 (2d Cir. 2013), which quotes from Adelson. All of those cases involved extremely lengthy sentencing ranges recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines for defendants who personally had no participation in causing any actual loss. For example, “Adelson was not the originator of the fraud, and, as the jury found in effect, Adelson did not participate in the fraudulent conspiracy until its final months,” during which time the company’s “stock was not further inflated.” Adelson, 441 F. Supp. 2d at 513. In other words, “Adelson was closer (though not identical) to an accessory after the fact.” Id. As a result, Judge Rakoff recognized that the Guidelines range of 85 years in prison could not account for the nuanced way in which the defendant participated in the scheme and resulted in a patently unjust advisory sentencing range. Id. Even after taking that factor into account, though, Judge Rakoff noted the importance of considering general deterrence in financial-fraud cases and imposed a three-and-ahalf-year sentence: “notwithstanding all the mitigating factors outlined above, meaningful prison time was necessary to achieve retribution and general deterrence.” Id. at 514. Adelson thus advocates implementing a meaningful custodial sentence in fraud cases, even when “it was undisputed at the time of sentencing that [a defendant’s] past history was exemplary.” Id. at 513. In Parris, the defendants were engaged in a two-month “pump and dump” scheme in the penny stock market that resulted in approximately $2,500,000 in losses among hundreds of victims who traded the stock. 573 F. Supp. 2d at 746-49. As a result of their brief penny-stock fraud, even with no criminal history, the defendants faced an advisory Guidelines range starting at 30 years’ imprisonment. Judge Block found this crime with that Guidelines range “not of the same character and magnitude as the securities-fraud prosecutions of those who have been responsible for wreaking unimaginable losses on major corporations.” Id. at 746. The district court asked the government and the defendants to provide the court with a compendium of factually analogous cases nationally. Id. at 751-52. After considering those cases, the court ultimately sentenced the defendants to 60 months’ imprisonment. Corsey presented a similarly unusual situation warranting a variance. In Corsey, the defendants were prosecuted for trying to carry out an outlandish scheme against, what turned out to be, an FBI informant. “This was a clumsy, almost comical, conspiracy to defraud a nonexistent investor of three billion dollars. That scheme never came close to fruition.” Corsey, 723 F.3d at 378. “This scheme amounted to a series of absurd lies piled on top of even more absurd lies.” Id. at 379. However, the defendants in Corsey immediately faced a Guidelines calculation that was above the statutory maximum of 20 years and close to life in prison. It is in this context that Judge Underhill, in a concurring opinion, found the Guidelines to be of “low marginal value” for the case at hand. But he did not say the guidelines were always of such little import. In fact, Underhill quoted Adelson in holding that in other instances, the Guidelines are “of considerable help to any judge in fashioning a sentence that is fair, just, and reasonable.” Id. at 380. Whatever merit there is to the argument that the Guidelines overstate the seriousness of the offense generally, this case is a particularly poor vehicle through which to make it. While reasonable minds can disagree about the precise workings of the fraud Guidelines and whether they are unduly driven by loss, no one would argue that the size and scope of a financial fraud should be unrelated to the resulting sentence. It stands to reason that a defendant who engages in a longer, bigger fraud involving more victims should be punished more harshly than a defendant who engages in a short-term scheme (as in Parris), only joins the scheme late (as in Adelson), or does not harm real victims (as in Corsey). Here, by any measure, the defendant’s crime was historic. By dollars, the loss amount was at least twenty times the top of the Guidelines range. And this was not merely the “loss amount,” it was the amount of money actually stolen from customers and lenders. Thus, this case is unlike the fraud in Adelson and other securities fraud cases, where the “ordinary measure of loss” is “the decline in the price of stock when the fraud is revealed.” 441 F. Supp. 2d at 506. Here, by contrast, the loss is simply the amount of money that the defendant stole from his victims as of the time that the fraud collapsed. In other words, Bankman-Fried fixed his own Guidelines range by misappropriating billions of dollars. Indeed, the Guidelines commentary suggests that in a case like this one, an upwards departure may be appropriate (although that is not what the Government seeks here). See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, cmt. n. 21(A) (upwards departure may be appropriate where the “offense caused or risked substantial non-monetary harm,” such as “psychological harm, or severe emotional trauma,” or where the “offense created a risk of substantial loss beyond the loss determined for purposes of subsection (b)(1), such as a risk of significant disruption of a national financial market”). Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 15, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

NUGG CLUB

nuggclub.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

NUGG CLUB

EVERGREEN INDEX #7974

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Nugg Club WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

NUGG CLUB

nuggclub.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

NUGG CLUB

EVERGREEN INDEX #7974

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT NUGG CLUB

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Nugg Club WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!