Remember all those celebrities who claimed they'd bought Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs? That was all a scam. It was put together by a Hollywood agent who represented both a long list of major celebrities and BAYC. Now there's a lawsuit against all the parties involved.
Kim Kardashian was already fined a few million dollars by the SEC for that sort of thing.
...then the NFT was scammed off him before the series was released.
Then he was in a catch-22. He could've just released the show without breaking any laws or contracts, but then he would've had to admit that NFTs are bullshit.
AFAIK the show is still unreleased. But he did buy the NFT back later: https://www.ign.com/articles/seth-green-nft-show-boredape-st...
> Remember all those celebrities who claimed they'd bought Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs?
Well, yeah... This isn't new, it's always been this way.
Remember all those people who said they'd leave the US if Trump won?
I never said they were - I said that celebrities who make promises to their fans never intend to follow through on them.
The fact that the thing being abstracted into a security is BS doesn’t affect the rules you have to follow when you’re acting like a thing is an investment.
Pumping and dumping nonsense Is securities fraud in plenty of cases, the legal frameworks were created to prevent that kind of behavior.
Your AAPL shares are just entities in a database somewhere (or a series of databases, it’s complex), an NFT is essentially the same, database entries that point to ownership of an abstract thing which can be traded.
In the first case it could be hyperbole, circumstances could change, it could be a statement made in the heat of the moment, etc. In the latter it is just a lie, or if money is at play, fraud.
If I recall correctly there were many republicans that claimed their kind would be deported if Biden came to power. At least those who predicted Trump would act like a fascist got it right.
When? So far, the most fascists of last 3 presidents has been Obama and Biden. They hate checks and balances and want to just rule by fiat.
It pissed me off for giving Democrats anything for politicizing Covid for electoral benefits, but Trump negotiated with Pelosi to get things done. When has Biden negotiated with Conservatives? Aside from calling them all terrorists?
I am not from the US and do not intend to travel there any time soon, so I couldn't care less about your internal quarrels, but Trump meets many of the criteria. Most famously the Italian writer Umberto Eco coined these 14 signs of fascism after having lived in fascist Italy (under Mussolini).
I quote it from Wikipedia here, follow allong and tick the boxes for each president, then count who has the most boxes. Ah and also search for critical stuff on the guy you like:
1. "The cult of tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
2. "The rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
3. "The cult of action for action's sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
4. "Disagreement is treason" – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
5. "Fear of difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
6. "Appeal to a frustrated middle class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
7. "Obsession with a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's "fear" of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also antisemitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
8. Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak". On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
9. "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" because "life is permanent warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
10. "Contempt for the weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
11. "Everybody is educated to become a hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
12. "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality".
13. "Selective populism" – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people".
14. "Newspeak" – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Definitions are too short for that kind of stuff anyways. Read some guy from the stone age the definition for any modern political system and they would not be able to imagine what it means in practise. These 14 points however make it somewhat tangible.
Eco also intended them as warning signs people can look at and check whether their own society (or parts thereof) are heading into fascism.
You know, completely tl;dr-unimportant stuff that you will totally not regret to have glossed over once your sons are sent into the meatgrinder of the Volkssturm, while your daughters are ordered to breed the next generation of disposable Übermensch /s
Do you think George Clooney drinks Lavazza coffee? Does that make it a scam?
Coffee commercials aren't scamming people out of millions.
The FTC didn't fine Clooney for coffee commercials but it did fine Kim, Paris Hilton, Jimmy Fallon and many other celebrities for peddling bullshit NFTs.
Reaction videos, eating things, hanging out and making jokes, making a stupid contest, trying some new experience...
It's like there is an entire part of the children/teen population that have such a bland life they feel good while watching somebody else living it.
Just read my comment and realized how "old man yells at cloud" it sounds, but hey, maybe someone will have something interesting to answer.
And of course it's not only teenagers who are feeling lonely and isolated and of course answer is not simple "just have friends, lol" There are even quite popular threads from HN, examples below in the footnote.
As I already written in other thread - I'm very convinced that this need will be a target for software developments especially with what's happening recently with AI. There are even early birds like Replika AI but I belive that more will come with more and more advanced "personal assistant/companion".
Vision straight from Bladerunner https://bladerunner.fandom.com/wiki/DiJi :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17279773 - How do you meet new people?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24492550 - How to Make Friends as an Adult
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32197381 - How to make friends in your 30s?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25817605 - Can you treat loneliness by creating an imaginary friend?
1. Go outside
2. Go outside
3. Go outside
4. No. Go outside.
It sounds dumb, but really. I'm an introvert, I have social anxiety, I've had periods where I don't see another human face for months. On the other hand I've made good friends just from random strangers talking to me in public.
Even the most socially inept can make friends. It's just a matter of placing yourself in the physical vicinity of other human beings on a regular basis. If you struggle talking to people Like I have, have a few drinks. That's been my experience anyway.
Even if you assume that it's not difficult to met some people then it is difficult to have really meaningful relationship, not facade with fake smiles, fake greetings and bam! contact lost on a whim.
It's not coincidence that true, years-long,lifelong friendships are often forged in the school, military etc. - it's just very long process to find compatible people, become even more compatible, learn to rely on each other and learn to value that.
I guess this also depends on how one's definition of "friend" looks like - there are multiple other words to chose from: coworkers, acquaintances, random people, etc.
Hell the person I consider my very best friend was just some dude I bought hash from at some point. I basically met him by accident looking for some drugs to sit at home and be alone and depressed. Then we realised we're kindred spirits, hackers, same taste in film and music, similar yet different philosophical views. We eventually ended up working together for over a year in a startup, and though we no longer live in the same city, we still try to arrange a week or two a year hanging out together hacking away on whatever we want to.
I have almost no friends from school that I keep in touch with today at all. And the ones I have on social media look like truly boring people for the most part.
This is a lot of people's experience... and a whole lot of us really, really, really regret it years later. Alcohol is an incredibly dangerous and insidious tool to use for social anxiety. It works great at first, so you ignore the negative effects. But over time, it makes everything worse.
Drinking alcohol decreases anxiety initially, but over time causes the body to raise base anxiety levels. It also lowers testosterone, messes with the lining of the gut and gut microbiome (which can also increase anxiety and negatively impact mood due to the strong gut-brain axis of emotional regulation and signaling) and negatively impacts numerous other parts of the body.
My education around "alcohol is bad" was either warnings about bad behavior while inebriated or vague intangible health risks in the distant future, both of which were easy to ignore. Sharing because I wish someone had informed me that the drink in my 20s to temporarily blunt social anxiety would make my life so much worse by my 30s.
One unit of alcohol can be sufficient. No need to get drunk or even be around other people who are drinking.
Drinking is just like anything else. It can be a tool or a crutch. The really hard thing me was it was so bad I couldn't even have a meaningful conversation with a therapist. And meds were a total waste of time for me(though I very much recommend trying if you think they might help).
I don't want to trivialise your experiences, but you might be unintentionally trivialising my experiences too, though I'm not at all offended :)
Strangely enough, I never even began to approach any risk of addiction with alcohol. It's puzzling to me because I get easily addicted to just about anything else, even weed.
Having a few drinks is not inebriation, that's all-or-nothing thinking.
Have a few drinks to reduce social anxiety except if you're prone to addictive behaviors (in which case there are a suite of things to watch out for).
That's the part I don't get.
Also, at least some celebrities are indeed professional entertainers.
But the videos I talk about, I would have thought the people in there were not funnier than my real friends, even at 12 years old. They have nothing special about it.
Maybe that's the key? That they are as average as the viewer?
However, I don't get watching pewdiepie playing something. I just can't groke it. You don't know the person, the person is not in the room, the person is not even currently playing since it's a recording. It's a flat image of someone else having fun. And not somebody particularly good, interesting or special.
I tried to tell myself it's like watching porn: you watch somebody else having sex, why not play video game? But something doesn't click for me.
I miss the point entirely.
It is essentially a hack for the brain's social processing systems. Generally, we'd have only seen others in real life and interacted with them. This confers evolutionary advantage so we feel good interacting further with people, and perhaps even seeing people do things we find enjoyable in the first place.
Now with video, we feel good as we "spend time" with the other person, even though they don't know of our existence. Our caveman brain doesn't know about this sort of one sided relationship at all, it wasn't present in the olden days.
We will see the same with AI and chatbots as the decades pass, only at least now we're actually able to interact in a two sided way. There are already people doing this with ChatGPT or even Replika.
You want to watch it live on tv, even though the fact that you're watching has zero impact on the result. You're just watching other people play a game. You could do anything else and just check the scores afterwards, but still you want to watch it.
Some people will watch a recording of the game and still enjoy it even though the scores were determined hours ago.
The younger generation does the same thing, but instead of sports they watch someone play a game.
I don't understand either, but I can live with it =)
But I can live as well with it. I don't blame the kids that watch those. I just don't understand it.
For me, it's just low effort entertainment. Like I don't enjoy talking with people, but it's kinda nice to have someone talk in the background to remind me that I'm not the only human alive.
I'm in my thirties though, these parasocial teenagers might be less jaded then I am.
But to get there, you have to spend time doing so before it happens.
Which means you have to watch many videos where somebody is explaining their school day or reacting to a movie trailer before you get to that point.
Indeed, which is exactly what these creators do. I've watched a few of their videos before and I can't get over how...mundane their content is. There really is nothing of actual substance there. But I assume watching more of that content over time cultivates the same feeling as bullshitting with your friends, hence the parasocial relationship forms.
It's okay if you don't get it, if you don't enjoy watching others game. Doesn't mean others can't
But at least for sports, you will see a level of play that is itself can be interesting because you can't just see it in day to day life.
Watching a video of a guy opening a kinder egg or playing badly at cod for the first time.
I get people watching streamers that are good at what they do. Rankers. Speed runners. Analysts. Jokers.
This is not what I'm talking about.
I've heard from some teachers that the younger children they see coming up find it very scary to interact with real kids.
Also, I told myself, it's like watching sport instead of playing it, but something seems different.
I never could grasp the former, so maybe that's why I don't get the latter.
I browse youtube anonymously and so I get the neutral youtube experience, with what it things the average user wants.
Today I say a video suggestion with kids in the pics and a title "we made a blind test to distinguish frozen food from real one".
It's a really easy thing to do with your friend and family, unlike the soap opera scenario. It's typically stuff I have done, and actually still do.
So there must be a component I miss.
Many of these shows were the pillar of people's evening ritual - the whole family would gather around the TV to watch a fictional family experience life.
It's not something you can replicate every day with just having a drink with your buds.
Or consider that some portion of the population would always be interested in such videos at any time in history, and it's only in the last decade that they have unlimited access.
Grown men watching other men play a sport that they like to play with their friends is equally weird.
I like playing basketball. I will never be as good as Lebron James. It's fun to watch someone else play at the edge of what is possible. I might even learn something I can use myself.
I like software development. I'll never be as good as John Carmack. It's fun to watch someone else talk and think about what I like. I might even learn something.
Don't steal other people's joy just because you don't understand it.
As narrow minded as claiming people who watch a certain type of YouTube video must necessarily have a "bland life"
We chose DSL, and definitely the Internet experience I had growing up was way different than every other kid at school since it was actually feasible to download a few small movies or games at the time, and to talk on chat apps/message boards at a very early age. All the online activities became part of my childhood along with my friends who lived locally and my other activities, and turned out, I enjoyed those a lot more than the in person activities which I mostly just _could_ do, as opposed to wanting to do them. So I had a pretty good balance I felt between physical activities, meeting with friends locally for bike rides or playing games, and the online social life also.
Edited addition: One of the most positive parts about this was that it was so new that my parents had very little to say because they did not understand it; if I wanted to join a message board or crack a game, my parents and teachers and other authority figures in my life absolutely could not say anything about it in a reasonable way; it was brand new, there were no guides or playbooks, I had to learn this all on my own. While I was a very independent child, it was mostly stuff in a familiar scope for my parents. They "knew" that if I went on a bike ride with friends, probably we were up to some mischief, because that's what happened when they were kids. Same with if I went to a friends house to play games, to the park, etc. The Internet was (and still is) completely out of their scope along with all the tech and knowledge required to use it at the time, so it was a major point of growth for me to learn this new world and how to survive in it. That felt really nice as a child, as I'd slowly start to learn the skills that helped me succeed as an adult.
I think that the current childhood experience probably would be what most of us would have had as online is now a normal aspect of kids lives, whether it's games or various chats/message boards, etc.
When you write:
>It's like there is an entire part of the children/teen population that have such a blend [sic] life they feel good while watching somebody else living it.
(I assume you mean "bland")
I'm not sure it's about a bland life. There is a lot of social interaction, just in a different form. Some people have trouble with understanding that online light interactions don't have the same weight as in real life impersonal interactions, but that's pretty normal I think. Most adults from the previous generation still have troubles with communication in my opinion (at least a fair amount of persons from businesses I work with have weaker communication skills that most children I know), so I'm not sure it's that these children are missing anything or have a "bland" life, it's just different. A lot of my younger friends are often in shock at my childhood pastimes before I had a nice computer and access to the Internet, cause man my friends and I used to get into a ton of trouble and do really dangerous/mean stuff to each other sometimes. We meant it in good fun, but in retrospect, I think that I'd rather my children were doing social stuff and learning/reading like I did when I got Internet as opposed to the stuff I used to do as a kid, which frankly speaking, was petty vandalism at times even just because we were so bored and wanted something "fun".
So it's not really that one is worse than the other or that modern life is bland, it's just different. There are lots of videos you can watch about early 2000's and 2010's internet culture, and it's really interesting for me because it wasn't the Internet I experienced as a kid; stuff like virtual worlds or alternate reality games that pop up on message boards seem like they were a lot of fun, and looks to have sparked a ton of creativity in the kids participating. I don't think this is a bad or bland life at all; just different.
Yeah, Frenchman here :) Let met edit that.
It’s what I love about HN. Sure, most of us wouldn’t mind being rich (sorry, ‘financially independent’), but it’s not the driver. The driver is to make something cool; to make something better.
I couldn’t imagine being the sort of person who sold people cheap Chinese shit just so I could buy a ‘Lambo’. Even if, by the book, that is a successful business.
I have no envy of these people.
Is this sarcasm? If it's genuine, I can think of many reasons. Either you are too young or wearing horse blinds or not living in the valley. Practically every start up is driven by a desire to be rich. This is why everyone sells to make millions at the first opportunity. They objectively have made the tech industry a worse place.
No. I’m a long way — physically — from ‘the valley’, and I’m certainly not young.
When I say ‘HN’ I mean the day to day discussion on this site. I know there’s VC and whatnot here but really, mostly, that’s not what I’m reading. Perhaps I subconsciously avoid it?
I’m reading people who are passionate about technology. I’m reading nerds who love a new thing. That’s what brings me back here day after day.
Or we can all be dogs, it's the internet and you have no idea. I'd start taking online communities with a bigger grain of salt.
Still, as a neutral observer to this, their sacrifice is greatly appreciated!
I was once pitched a gig that, after you boiled away the flowery tech contraptions, amounted simply to “run your own scummy leadgen business.” I felt like I had to take a shower after hearing that pitch. Wouldn’t it be nice if I didn’t have that part of my brain that recoils in disgust at treating other human beings as “leads” to be bought and sold?
Apart from the lack of personal fulfillment, isn't it good for society, and thus not such a bad job, that fools are parted from their money? After all, consumers decide what our society does. If a consumer is not able to recognize a scam, how can society trust them to make meaningful decisions? A hustle guru will spend their money on fast cars and thus at least support state of the art engineering.
Still, to adress that point:
"isn't it good for society, and thus not such a bad job, that fools are parted from their money"
It is overall bad, as it creates an atmosphere of distrust and distrusting everything costs a lot of energy.
I don't really care (that much anyway, I do care a bit) that some useful idiot went broke buying into yet another crypto scam. I do care about the guys running the operation getting more resources though as they will use them to make the world I live in worse.
I find that distasteful about the whole advertising industry, that celebrities are just a part of.
So nobody can find inspiration and learn about new things from YouTube videos? This seems like a fairly obtuse statement. I don’t watch these hustle porn guys on YouTube but I learn a hell of a lot from smaller tech YouTubers who produce educational content.
The author is clearly quite salty. Vox is just as bad if not worse than these guys on YouTube. Their whole schtick is riling people up for page views with no consideration for the wider societal impact.
The point is that these people aren’t making their money from what they’re preaching, they’re making it from YouTube.
Even if there were some validity to what they’re saying in the videos, if the video has 3 million views by the time you’ve watched it then you’re at least the 3 millionth fish in the packed-to-the-gills salmon farm by then and there’s no margin left for you.
It’s okay to be slightly provocative to get attention to a valid story, IMO. At no point does Vox tell me I too can run my own news publication and become influential like them; if they did then I think it’s fair to doubt them and their motivations.
Given that the ideas they’re shilling are inherently scalable, logically it follows that if they knew how to make it work they wouldn’t have to snake oil people on YouTube for money, therefore, they’re advice has no value.
"If you’re taking AI or drop shipping startup ideas from online videos with hundreds of thousands of views, you’ve already lost"
"So nobody can find inspiration and learn about new things from YouTube videos?"
‘You’ve already lost’ implies that every idea must be completely unique in order for you to ‘win’ whatever that means.
This is not a correct interpretation. It implies watching YouTube influencer ideas is not a way that gives you much chances of success. That there are better ways to start your business than a youtube video idea. Your interpretation is the most extreme one you can take from what is written.
It's possible for an idea to not be unique but from unique to "3m people watched on youtube" goes a long way, and the type of idea that gets 3m views is probably optimized for entertainment more than business resilience.
So here we again have the general malaise of western culture -- the fact that everything is done for money and more and more of the culture is based on tricking the content consumer into spending money. Have you ever wondered, for example, why in modern culture the paragon of femininity is considered the ability to shop for a lot of expensive stuff that you do not need and the paragon of masculinity is considered to be gambling. When you think about it those are both ways to lose a lot of money fast.
So culture or content is more and more centered on the ability to trick the consumer to lose money for no good reason and the smarter consumers try to grow an internal resistance to these tricks and the dumber ones fall prey to them.
Vox doesn't even understand what drop shipping is. The whole point is that the goods don't need to be owned. Vox are mad people are watching dumb videos instead of their own low quality articles.
It's deeply, crushingly sad that a flimflam gimmick preying on parasocial affection is a draw - they're so low that it works on them.
How do you even undo that kind of damage?
Often that means give the kids a smartphone or tablet because that keeps them quiet.
Like an MLM scheme that also has links to white Christian fundame.. oh nevermind.
The more influence [X] gets, the more [Y] are going to say bad things about them
You can observe this everywhere. From high school hallways to government and corporate orgs.
We get to practice this with football teams, but it bleeds over into politics.
Why would you think that? That seems like a very negative world view to me.
The seller is not exploiting the buyer, it's just a mutual deal where both parties benefit.
I create a product, and some of my users really love it. They are very happy that I created it in so far that they want to pay for it. They want me to make more features.
I, on my part, am very grateful that they love my product. That means they want to pay for it and I can make a living. I love my biggest fans or hard-core users the same way as they love me and my product. Is it a real personal relationship? Probably not.
You make it seem like all people that sell you something try to rip you off. Maybe they just want to create a great product, and create a win-win relationship. I'm sure plenty of artists love their fans and want to do great things for them.
> - 8 hours sleep
> - No porn
> - Hit the gym
> - Make lots of money
> - Have a big family
> This is the magic of life.
The author points to that like those are supposed to be bad/vain things.
Whoever wants to nudge me not to pursue the above (here: author of the article) is my enemy.
So I despise both the influencers mentioned and the author of the article.
EDIT: I would add "no social media", but that would break the influencers business model ;-)
Since the 1970s, the path to even modest generational wealth has been eroded. You can play the property casino, inherit your money, or maybe luck out with joining the right startup or making the right investment at the right time - or a combination thereof. The slow-and-steady path of working hard and saving frugally for a reasonably priced home and a pension, with a decent public education for your kids and decent free or reasonably priced healthcare and social protections, has been eroded in the turbocharged neoliberalism of the past few decades.
If you are a young person looking at all of this, you could be forgiven for thinking the "study hard, work hard, have a family, buy a home, retire" ethic is for mugs, and the only way to carve out a decent lifestyle (not even talking about Lambos and mansions) is the Hustle.
It's really really that simple. If your income is not enough to achieve the above state loop, then you'll need to put effort into increasing available income; whether by reducing expenses or increasing income by way of self education, career change, etc.
It's not hard. Anyone in America with $35,000/yr is in the 1% of the world's economic strata.
That doesn't take into account the vastly different cost of living across the world. Sure, 35k USD is a lot compared to some countries, but it's barely scraping by in most US metros.
US wages have not kept pace with the increase in cost of living and goods and services for decades.
Even if folks somehow managed to save 15% of the 35k every year for 40 years (which is really hard) they're left just touching a million with a guaranteed 8% return, and that's their retirement funds. After using those funds to live for the next ~20+ years extremely modestly doesn't leave much of anything for "generational wealth".
Unless you're already in the upper 20% the best bet remaining is to help your kids get through college and hope they get a higher paying job than you. Which is increasingly difficult as the cost of education has skyrocketed compared to wages.
If you’re taking AI or drop shipping startup ideas from online videos with hundreds of thousands of views, you’ve already lost. This is a truth of media literacy, not business or science, and it’s a lot more difficult to learn than watching a YouTube video that basically amounts to “eight easy ways to lose your life savings.”
For youtube influencers / gurus / religious gurus, they are in business of selling clicks and views so they'll be more prone to tell you what you want to listen than what will truly help you. Even likes of Jordan Peterson may give wonderful advice if consulted in person, but on Youtube he has to cater to the bias of people who are viewing his videos.
I've never even heard of these people.
Remember all those celebrities who claimed they'd bought Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs? That was all a scam. It was put together by a Hollywood agent who represented both a long list of major celebrities and BAYC. Now there's a lawsuit against all the parties involved. Kim Kardashian was already fined a few million dollars by the SEC for that sort of thing.