What I mean is that while it may be worse for optimizing the global output of the system than simply letting the scamming happen (which is what you seem to be asking about), it's important to remember that it's not all about optimizing the global number, but also preventing individuals from experiencing financial ruin.
I guess what I take issue with is that you keep claiming that it's making the situation worse...How? In the short term what are the alternatives? Let the scammers keep trying to rip people off, with some level of success?
That makes sense but I guess the question is why? If things work and people are happy with a system, why do the opposite and ruin it? I know it isn't an easy question to answer and could really be anything, but sometimes I really just want to sit down with them and find out why. It is fascinating stuff, but it hurts to think about sometimes. Just because the value of becoming a scammer goes up, doesn't mean we should embrace it.
>why not sacrifice where the end goal eliminates the problem rather than exacerbates it?
It doesn't eliminate the problem. Covered by others, but it's a collective action problem. The fact that a few people "scam the scammers" doesn't actually make the industry unprofitable. So unless you can get a tipping point where lots of people are willing to spend inordinate amounts of time "scamming the scammers" (you won't), it doesn't do anything to eliminate the problem, and probably makes things worse.
Meh. Probably not, there are systemic risks from people losing all their money all at once. It's a good thing to incentivize catching and blocking transactions to scammers.
Ok, but this is the point that I think we disagree; I would think that the "bad shuffle" is what we want? I think you would agree that grandmother spending her entire retirement on Google Play cards is a bad thing. Deliberately wasting their time guarantees that at least that scammer is not extracting money from some random person. I'm having trouble seeing how that's a bad thing; all these scambaiters are doing is kind of forcing the "bad shuffle".
I think I must be misunderstanding because it genuinely seems to be that you're suggesting that the best course of action is to just let people get scammed for hundreds of thousands of dollars until there is a systemic solution. A systemic solution can take years, maybe decades.
Oh certainly, and we should encourage such methods where practical. But if we're going to condemn people for using the same financial tools that can be (and are) also used for scams, I have some bad news about that global economy of yours...
I dunno. When the scams get revealed in the stock market they tank the global economy. The composite risk assessment for the stock market is thusly somewhat higher imo
Right, but that means it will be a lot easier to scam regular people. The ability to clawback money is a vital way of stopping scams over the internet.
I often wonder to what extent scams like this have positive externalities, insofar as the people who get scammed were perhaps unlikely to allocate capital in socially efficient ways.
This is mostly true, but it would be worked on a lot harder if the companies involved had a financial incentive to work on it. Currently the scammers pay their bills and the incentives work the other way - it's best for them to say they are working on it but drag their feet.
The question reduces to one of incentives. Scams are extremely easy to initiate, cheap to scale, and once they're sniffed out, extremely easy to replicate with a small variation in location/product/approach. In other words, they're like good software.
So...what might curtail the proliferation of scams (besides cruel and unusual punishments)? Decentralization? More factors of authentication?
I don't think the root problem would be the money you directly scam from other users. I think it would be the huge loss in trust in the network once it's been seen to happen.
The problem here is that it's the scammer who experiences the economies of scale, but not the moderation. A big platform is worth a hundred thousand times more for the scammer than Mr 0.0001% but the cost of moderation is the same for both.
I agree. The main problem is that in spite of the good intentions, a project like this will attract a lot of scammers, and people will lose their savings faster.
No, I don’t think sewing opportunity for scammers to take advantage of others is better. I used to agree with you in my libertarian utopia stage as a uni freshman but
looked at things differently when I watched my tech unsavvy parents lose money to scams like subscription antivirus software that just played the same bullshit scanning
animation every time. “Personal choice” is probably the same justification the scammers have. To me it’s just naive. Power users can already use Android and bypass such constraints. Win/win.
"Better" is debatable. If you've ever actually wired money to scammer, you'd know that the banking system isn't one giant kumbaya circle run on gentlemen's agreements to Do The Right Thing, and you were rolling your eyes through the whole thread[1].
At most, it works like that for anyone rich or working on behalf of a big firm, which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. And don't you worry, cryptocurrencies are just as capable of reversing transactions of those with the real power! [2]
reply