I agree it's not 1 to 1, it's a different thing, I was just saying that it does seem like the SEC is taking these crypto company shenanigans much more seriously now, and I'm really grateful for it. It would have been better five or six years ago, but I'll take the small victories where I can get them. Even if Gemini Earn wasn't quite as bad as Metamask, it was still bad to make misleading promises about safety of your investment.

I accept my share of the responsibility for not reading the terms thoroughly enough, and for not being more skeptical of 7% interest when banks were only offering like 0.5%. It was short sighted of me, I guess I got caught up in the crypto hype like a lot of people did, and I do think Gemini should be held accountable for a bit of the misleading marketing they did.

> I was also interested in Gemini Earn until I read the terms and decided it was almost a guaranteed way to lose all of my money.

As I said, credit to the SEC because I did get all of it back (though I would have much rather gotten it back early because it of course lost value in limbo due to inflation and not being investable in the market).

----

I was thinking about how a generally pretty skeptical person like me got caught up in this; I don't gamble and I've never fallen for an MLM and I don't play the lottery, and I think I figured it out.

Whether accidental or not, cryptocurrency was able to launder its reputation through academics. Blockchain is academically interesting and as such a lot of academics got caught into it too, and I guess I put more trust into them than I should. Seeing Philip Wadler working for IOHK made me think that it was a better investment than it should have been.

I forgot that academics are still regular humans and aren't immune to hype trains either.