MNHQ here: tell us what you think about whether MN should take ads for cryptocurrency trading

As stated above, the simple solution is for MN to only get involved with REGULATED financial activities.
Anything else is irresponsible.

"I also greatly dislike the fact that some crypto currencies such as bitcoin are used by extortionists and providers of extreme child porn."

So are US$ and Visa.

I think it's patronising to block cryptocurrency and shows a real lack of understanding (again) from the people who run this forum.

I agree alpha

The easy accessibility of child abuse images and film , drugs , weapons , paid for violence is down to the fact that people can anonymously buy them

That said I MN choose to advertise them that’s their choice

I get the site for free !

But yes It’s like we know that Bitcoins are there if for some reason we need to operate outside the law

(To clarify, he wasn't in residential care when he accessed drugs. He was sectioned following the suicide near miss.)

No

To those of you saying that cash, too, is used for illegal activities -- well yes it is but it's still the case that crypocurrencies present additional opportunities for abusive transactions that aren't (yet at any rate) compensated for by any benefits that they bring.

It's a bit like responding to concerns about guns by saying that people are also killed with fists, kitchen knives, etc.

My autistic and mentally ill son regularly got methamphetamine delivered to his front door, thanks to bitcoin. He would have found it very much harder, or impossible, to access drugs without the dark web, because of his autism and the care team around him.
The drugs devastated him to the point where is went on to order a different combination of drugs for the purpose of suicide. It is hard to imagine how he will remain safe when he is no longer in residential care.

I would be happy with ads for financial companies/products covered by official regulation/fsa

Well said Hilly

^Money laundering, fraud, states avoiding financial sanctions, as well as paying for dodgy stuff online

Essentially allows criminals, terrorists and states like N Korea to transfer and launder funds

god i loathe cryptocurrencies^

Do you also loathe the American dollar because that’s used infinitely more widely for those sort of activities than cryptocurrency??

The amount of views expressed without a proper understanding of the subject is par for the course I suppose.

I'd say yes, of course. Caveat emptor. But then look where a democratic vote on Brexit got us.

Protect the halfwit majority if you must.

Isn't bitcoin used to pay for all sorts of illegal shit?

Money laundering, fraud, states avoiding financial sanctions, as well as paying for dodgy stuff online

Essentially allows criminals, terrorists and states like N Korea to transfer and launder funds

god i loathe cryptocurrencies

noooo

They are unregulated investments (although the Financial Conduct Authority will look to regulate firms offering trading in them when they can).

Findings of the FCA Taskforce on cryptocurrencies

And whilst cryptoassets are not currently widely used in the UK, and the UK is not a major exchange market for cryptoasset trading relative to the global one, we are concerned about the potential harm posed by current usage of these often poorly-understood cryptoassets.

The taskforce has concluded that there are 3 major harms associated with cryptoassets.

The first harm is to consumers, who may buy unsuitable products, face large losses, be exposed to fraudulent activity, struggle to access market services, or be exposed to the failings of service providers, such as exchanges.

More here on crypto scams:
www.fca.org.uk/scamsmart/cryptocurrency-investment-scams
This means that if you invest in cryptocurrencies you will not have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service (link is external) or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (link is external) if things go wrong.

I'd stay well away from them as scams are rife and (IMHO) are designed to be scamlike. Dutch tulip bulbs at least give you

I also find it worrying that MNHQ don’t seem to know much about cryptos if they are asking us if it’s more analogous to gambling! If they don’t know what crypto trading is, how much research have they done to check that this company isn’t one of the crypto scams?

@VanGoghsDog

Where have I said that I have the right to choose what other people see?

MN asked for our opinion and I said that I hope they don't advertise something that causes a lot of people misery.

The fact that you see that as moralising is really sad and says alot about you as a person.

And the way you asked 'doesn't everybody?' is really arrogant, especially as it's people like me without an ad blocker who fund people like you and your access to MN.

I vote no.

@M4J4

MN make their money from loads of things. But if you're happy to look at adverts that's your choice. If you support them in that then I don't see how you can get all moral over it and think you have the right to choose what other people see.

GladAllOver That would be sensible.

Surely the answer is very simple.

MN should only become involved with REGULATED investments.

I think No. I think it is closer to gambling than investments that have profit making (or profit attempting) companies, or tangible assets such as property or intellectual property.

I think that often they tempt very unsophisticated investors who think they can make a quick profit rather than more than average sophisticated investors which is what it needs.

Bitcoin may not have intentionally been designed as a Ponzi, but it has ended up akin to one. The only way the price will go up is if more people pump their money in, which is why they are having to go further and further afield to try and recruit people. Bitcoin is so poorly designed that it requires substantial amounts of money pumped into it every day to keep the price from falling (miners have to pay their mining costs). This money is going to be coming from MNers.

Look at the threads from the mania this time last year. All those people will have lost a lot of money. I personally trade it successfully, but really wouldn't recommend it to novices. 80%+ will likely lose money.

Bookies are far more reputable and regulated, so if you don't allow them you certainly shouldn't be allowing this.

@VanGophsDog

Fine by me, I have an ad blocker, doesn't everyone?

No, because MN relies on advertising revenue to keep going and I'm happy to do my bit by not having an ad blocker.

But I hope MN don't advertise something that has brought misery to many.

It’s the fact that it’s a product that can be used for very very immoral purchases

On the dark net

For example . Maybe I am ignorant but that’s the issue that troubles me ?

Jasonmendoza Thu 29-Nov-18 16:03:16

No. Crypto currency investments are Ponzi schemes.

Massive lol. Cryptocurrencies are based on the blockchain and cannot be rehypothecated, unlike fiat currencies. They are all finite. There will only ever be 21Mn bitcoin. Cryptos are the least Ponzi like things ever, they are democratic money.

JudasPrudy Thu 29-Nov-18 19:47:14

Isn't bitcoin used to pay for all sorts of illegal shit?

Using cash didn't stop the Mexican drug cartels using HSBC to launder their money. At least bitcoin, unlike cash, is traceable (to an extent) because of the blockchain.

@MNHQ if you do allow this, please get the advertisers to stress that investors must keep their private key safe or they will lose their money. That's £100 I'll never see again (current value if I had the private key - about £1200).

I would say be cautious. The lack of regulation of 'cryptocurrencies' makes them ripe for scammers to exploit, and it's a speculative bubble that will burst anyway. It's not the only dubious investment around, but that's hardly a reason in favour of carrying the ads.

(I think the speculators have done tremendous damage to cryptocurrency, other markets, and the environment, but that's not really relevant.)

MNHQ have always banned certain categories (payday lenders) and companies (Nestle) from advertising on the site. But outside of those red lines, they take what they’re given and don’t check ads individually. This is about adding a new category to the blacklist - it’s obviously a relatively new thing and wouldn’t have occurred to them when they drew up the original list.

I don't understand. Usually when people complain about adverts we're given some guff about "it's a package deal, we're not in charge of what adverts are/aren't included".
Are you now saying that you can be selective when you feel like it.