I speak with author and former crypto industry insider, Jake Donoghue about his new book, “Crypto Confidential: An Insider’s Account From The Frontlines Of Fraud.” In this book, Jake talks about his time working on launching a crypto company and then pivoting to start an agency that helps launch other crypto projects. He pulls no punches in describing the multi-layered fraud and deception which seems to encompass every aspect of the industry.
In this episode I sit down with the author of two books on the crypto industry, IT professional and writer, David Gerard. David has been calling attention to the irrationality and criminality in the crypto industry for many years. Let’s see what he thinks of the current state of the industry and its many colorful players.
One of the most detailed and prolific sources of data on the shenanigans of people like Elon Musk, Andrew Tate, Kevin O’Leary and others can be found on a YouTube channel called, “The Common Sense Skeptic.” In the short time he’s been producing videos, he’s managed to publish a wide array of very detailed, very damning details of some of these controversial characters’ pasts and present. We talk about what he’s discovered and what’s happening now with some of these people.
You’ve heard the stories about people who go “all in” on Bitcoin.
These are the “pink unicorns” of investing.
Does it make sense to put all your eggs in one crypto basket?
Well, we talk to one guy who’s done that, and try to explain why that might be a bad idea.
It’s been a few weeks and there’s been some interest to check back in with our infamous crypto unicorn who has gone “all in” on Bitcoin and see if our last discussion had any impact on his outlook.
I also dive a little deeper into how his crypto adoption has manifested and how much actual experience he’s had testing the exchanges to see if he can get his “money” back?
There are some very interesting and/or shocking revelations towards the end.
Be sure to leave your comments and let us know what you think?
You’ve heard the stories about people who go “all in” on Bitcoin. These are the “pink unicorns” of investing. Does it make sense to put all your eggs in one crypto basket? Well, we talk to one guy who’s done that, and try to explain why that might be a bad idea.
In this episode, in addition to commenting about the current state of the bitcoin bump and how that affects our online communities, we take advantage of the recent pump of bitcoin to talk about a common talking point: “Number go up” – is it the most important metric in all of crypto? It might be, but does it mean that we’re wrong in our criticisms? Not at all and we’ll explain why.
Our last episode and the story that Sal exposed regarding the questionable “objectivity” of those behind the crypto media company “Protos” caused quite a bit of stir among a certain “Crypto Critic” community, to the point where Bennett Tomlin and Cas Piancey blocked everybody associated with the criticisms and began spiraling downwards into some kind of odd meltdown.
Along the way, we were accused of trying to ‘attack’ and ‘cancel’ the Crypto Critics.
This seemed quite odd because all we basically did was ask a few basic questions.
It seems the “Crypto Critics” are very good at casting aspirsions and critiques at others, but not at all comfortable having the light shown on themselves.
This culminated in a two hour impromptu Twitter Spaces showdown between Adam and one of their people, a guy by the name of Cameron Crews.
Watch the train wreck in all its glory here:
Additional images and screen caps relating to the story can be found here:
Sal discusses an investigative piece he’s published on questions and concerns over crypto news entity, “Protos” and the “Crypto Critics”, Bennett Tomlin and Cas Piancy who are on their payroll.
Are some of the most prominent “crypto critics” in media double agents? Pretending to be critical of crypto when instead they’re lap dogs for the industry? Sal chronicles an interesting turn of events that manifested over several months that led him to look into who’s behind some of the work penned by the people behind the “Crypto Critics Podcast.”
UPDATE NOTE that this podcast was recorded before the “Crypto Critics” released their most recent podcast where they actually claimed Tether was fully-backed. So before we made this public, there’s even more evidence of some questionable conflicts of interest.
Also, new details will be listed after the video and podcast links below – check them out:
UPDATE
This podcast was recorded last week. A number of things have come to light since then, and we’ll continue to update this page with new developments and citations.
First and foremost, as mentioned in the podcast, many of us have been trying to reach out to the CCC (crypto critics corner) people for some time to talk about various issues, and have been ghosted. This has resulted in more of an adversarial relationship than we would have preferred, but it is what it is. However, we finally got Bennett to, at least someone respond to our inquiries in their Discord the other day. Unfortunately, most of our inquiries that were the subject of this podcast and Sal’s article, remain unanswered — in fact, when pressed to identify who the mysterious “co-found of Protos” is, Bennett quickly exited the conversation and was no longer heard from.
One thing we did get from the short interaction was an official statement on their stance on certain issues of import: “Are you pro crypto/blockchain?” Here’s what he said:
The “crypto critics” do not think Bitcoin is a ponzi. They think Tether is fully backed. They continue to harp an unproven narrative that “blockchain has potential” despite no evidence of this in the last 15 years. Suffice to say, the fact that they are employed by a company who is run by both a mysterious co-founder they won’t identify, and another co-founder who clearly benefits from further proliferation of the crypto industry, the writing is on the wall. In our opinion, the “crypto critics” are more double agents, working for the crypto industry, than they are independent free-thinkers who can be relied upon to report the truth to the public. As always, you make up your own mind on this, but we find their insistence on promoting certain narratives in lieu of legitimate evidence, very disconcerting and deceptive.
We’ve extended them an invitation to appear on our podcast at any time and defend their position, and have offered ourselves on theirs as well, but based on their demeanor and past behavior, it’s unlikely there will be any good faith debate on the subject. We will remain open to it however. Let it be known, that myself and Sal are available to answer any questions – we are not going to disappear or ghost anybody that asks something uncomfortable. The same apparently can’t be said for the “crypto critics.”
And to make things clear… here are OUR disclosures (as if there was any confusion)
1. Blockchain is an inferior, obsolete technology that does nothing better than existing non-blockchain technology (and Adam produced an entire award-winning documentary detailing the evidence to back up this claim that the crypto critics will not even acknowledge exists).
2. There is inadequate credible evidence that USDT/Tether is “fully backed.” There’s an industry standard way to remove doubt on this issue: having an independent audit done by a reputable accounting firm. Tether has refused to submit to this basic industry standard. That’s all anybody needs to know as far as the credibility of their claims. And in our opinion (which is likely echoed by any professional with knowledge of ethical accounting procedures) it is irresponsible to parrot any claim to the contrary in lieu of this standard audit.
3. As we’ve reported on and researched in detail before, the operational model that treats Bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency) as an “investment” is functionally identical to a Ponzi scheme. The notion that bitcoin is a Ponzi is nota fringe opinion. It is echoed by many other experts across both computer science and finance industries, as well as governments.
So there you have it. In our opinion, it’s misleading to label oneself a “crypto critic” yet continue to parrot certain narratives that are not at all critical of crypto, but in fact, extremely un-critical of the industry, to the point where large swaths of undeniable evidence is wholly ignored (which explains CCC’s unwillingness to call attention to the documentary, “Blockchain – Innovation or Illusion?” and their unwillingness to have an honest, unfiltered debate on the subject.
People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones…
As always, think critically… and often. And watch the watchers. That’s what we’ll be doing.
As a result of court action, the SEC recently voted on whether to approve spot Bitcoin ETPs and in a 3/2 vote, allowed them. We look into what these ETPs/ETFs are and discuss one of the SEC chair’s rather incendiary letter of dissent.
In this episode we tackle one of our biggest tech pet peeves: Comparing crypto & blockchain to the “early Internet” as a way to suggest blockchain has the same potential as the Internet did, but merely “takes time” to become accepted as something essential and useful.
This is a flat out delusion. And we discuss the details of how and why it’s a dreadful false equivalence to suggest crypto is in any way, comparable to the Internet.
