> I find it unlikely an ICO conviction would help anyone electorally. Only tiny proportion of voters would even understand what happened. It's not like high profile corruption or murder or something everyone gets.
It'd be so easy to spin ICOs as a matter of fraud that's taking advantage of uninformed investors, a Ponzi scheme, or any of the other buzzwords that historically work pretty well in convincing voters of criminal financial activity.
Whether or not you actually view ICOs as any of these things is incidental to whether or not an AG with career ambitions would be able use that rhetoric to gain votes.
> It'd be so easy to spin ICOs as a matter of fraud that's taking advantage of uninformed investors, a Ponzi scheme, or any of the other buzzwords that historically work pretty well in convincing voters of criminal financial activity.
Indeed. The fact that ICO's have generally been fraudulent get rich schemes aids greatly in this "spin" of which you speak.
Even worse. ICOs are based on crypto magic money. Crypto means computers. Computers means Silicon Valley, which is the current go-to elite to hate. I can see a way to spin this politically that could resonate with plenty of the US population.
Given the recent deluge of anti-SV (and anti-tech sphere in general) articles in mass media, I'm not sure about that. People do read and share this stuff.
It'd be so easy to spin ICOs as a matter of fraud that's taking advantage of uninformed investors, a Ponzi scheme, or any of the other buzzwords that historically work pretty well in convincing voters of criminal financial activity.
Whether or not you actually view ICOs as any of these things is incidental to whether or not an AG with career ambitions would be able use that rhetoric to gain votes.