You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: 🎆 Are We Now Primed For The Big One?
That is the publicly communicated reason for the ban. They could be sued by law-abiding ICO's as well. No one is guilty until proven otherwise. The presumption of innocence does apply for ICO's too. So whole argumentation smells like discrimination. You could also argue that the ban and an upcoming issueing of an cryptocurreny , is a breach of competetion law and an abuse of marketpower. As I wrote, it's worth an own article.
I think that their legal duty to protect customers from scams will easily outweigh any perceived conpetition law issues. ICOs are not cyypton but a token representing an investment. And coins are usually not owned by any one company, so I don’t see who could complain about competition. Start ups don’t usually generate funding by advertising share issues or bond issues on Facebook so why should they be forced to accept ads from ICOs, the vast majority of which at best have no viable product, business case or plan and at worse are blatant cons.!i think that bitconnect exposes just how easy it was to generate huge sums of money whilst running an obvious scam and if Facebook continued to tacitly endorse it by running ads promoting it, they would be sued!