The most obvious stupid scam ever conceived and they actually managed to hook a bunch of actual corporations

Square Enix, Nickelodeon, Coke, KFC, and more fell for this shit while regular people were laughing about how obvious a con it was.

Really puts into question the capitalist myth of the genius entrepreneur and the idea that these corporate types are rich because they are smart or deserving in some way.

  • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    I genuinely hate how dense you are

    Because I’m calling out the cynical grift you’re pulling.

    You’re claiming that the answer to capitalism is more capitalism, this time from a shiny newer casino that is already majority owned and operated and pushed by ruling class capitalists and that will somehow topple capitalism and bring about an unspecified utopia that you’ve been vague about so far but have used techbro language to try to dazzle people with your bullshit.

    • Junomint [any, she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      “ You’re claiming that the answer to capitalism is more capitalism” I read this in the Christopher walken more cow bell tone and I just thought I should share. I got a fever and the only prescription is more capitalism

      • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        You would genuinely own a portion of a company instead of an IOU.

        YOUR CASINO TOKENS ARE YOURS TO INVEST. BEAT THE CASINO BY GAMBLING WHAT LITTLE YOU HAVE LEFT! morshupls

          • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, and some people do profit from that. That’s the whole point. The problem being that the poor can’t afford to lose that gamble and they lack the connections or insider information to make better informed bets.

            But the crypto peddler said this new casino is different and better because the internet and the future and jargon words and revolutionize the world morshupls

            • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The problem being that the poor can’t afford to lose that gamble and they lack the connections or insider information to make better informed bets

              well that makes no sense if it’s the same amount of money being bet

              • The_Jewish_Cuban [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m confused. The rich and poor can bet 50k on a company? Surely you see the difference between losing 50k making 50k a year and losing 50k as a multimillionaire.

                • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  yes but if you can’t afford to loose 50K on the stock market you can’t afford to loose 50K on crypto

                  crypto currency does nothing to deal with the issue of whether or not you can afford to gamble money on it

                  • The_Jewish_Cuban [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    People have bills man

                    1,000,000- 50,000= 950,000

                    50k-50k= 0

                    Who can afford food after that?

                    Affording something is just about having the cash on hand to buy it. If you can’t deal with the consequences of the loss you’re not really affording it no?

                    Even with less extreme numbers the point still stands. You’re misrepresenting and or misunderstanding UlyssesT.