Cryptico

Category: Frameworks

What the research says.

  • Crypto Influencers: How Hype, Scams, and Ego Burn Retail Investors

    Crypto Influencers: How Hype, Scams, and Ego Burn Retail Investors

    Aiden Pleterski, once hailed as Canada’s “Crypto King,” lived a life of excess funded by investor trust—and deception. His downfall highlights a bigger problem: the dangerous influence of self-proclaimed crypto experts online. As a recent study shows, the cost of following hype over research is higher than you think.

    Aiden Pleterski was living the dream, or so it seemed. Dubbed the “Crypto King,” this young Canadian investor dazzled followers with promises of sky-high returns. His Instagram screamed success: private jets, exotic cars, luxury vacations. He claimed it was all thanks to cryptocurrency trading.

    But behind the glamour was a shocking truth. Of the $41.5 million CAD given to him by over 160 investors, less than 1.6% was actually invested. The rest? Spent on his lavish lifestyle.

    Now, Aiden Pleterski is at the heart of one of Canada’s most notorious financial scandals. A modern-day Icarus, he flew too close to the sun. What happened to the Crypto King, and what can we learn from his crash? More importantly: what do crypto influencers really offer?

    Who Are Crypto Influencers?

    They’re the self-proclaimed gurus of your timeline. With catchy memes and financial jargon, they promise untold riches if you just “HODL” or “ape into” a new token. But how real is their influence?

    A recent study in the Review of Accounting Studies sheds light on what happens when we follow these voices.

    What the Research Shows

    Researchers analyzed over 35,000 tweets from 180 crypto influencers between 2021 and 2022. These posts promoted 1,690 different crypto assets.

    On the surface, the impact looks impressive:

    • Average +1.83% one-day return across all promoted assets
    • Up to +3.86% for small-cap tokens

    But it’s a trap. Within five days, more than half of those gains disappear. After 30 days, investors are left with an average loss of 6.53%. For small-cap assets, the drop worsens—a brutal -10.76%.

    Why Do They Do It?

    Because it pays—them, not you.

    Crypto influencers benefit through:

    • Paid promotions by token developers
    • Free tokens or early access
    • Gaining online clout as market movers

    And here’s the twist: the ones who position themselves as “experts” often drive the worst long-term performance for their followers. The larger the following, the bigger the crash.

    The Culture of Hype and Belief

    This problem isn’t just about individual bad actors. It’s about a culture built on blind optimism.

    In the crypto world, phrases like “to the moon” or “diamond hands” aren’t just slang—they’re emotional manipulation tools. Influencers feed into a belief system where selling is weakness, and holding is virtue—even when losses are mounting.

    What About Regulation?

    Some action has been taken. Celebrities like Kim Kardashian have faced SEC fines for undisclosed crypto promotions.

    But the vast world of anonymous influencers? Still thriving.

    Crypto’s borderless and decentralized nature makes enforcement difficult. Regulators are always steps behind.

    So, What Should You Do?

    If you’re still relying on crypto-influencers for advice, the message is clear:

    Don’t.

    Or at least, take every claim with deep skepticism. Hype delivers short-term excitement, but rarely long-term value.

    Real investing requires research, risk management, and a dose of humility—not meme coins and blind trust.

    Final Thought

    Crypto influencers are not just digital cheerleaders, they’re often key players in a system that rewards noise over substance.

    Until crypto culture matures and accountability increases, the only thing many investors will reach is disappointment, not the moon.
    Crypto-influencers aren’t just harmless hype machines—they’re a symptom of a larger issue: a market that rewards noise over substance. The crypto world must learn to balance its wild-west ethos with accountability. Otherwise, the “moon” will remain just a mirage for most.

  • Cypherpunks: Radicals, rebels, and the code that changed everything

    Cypherpunks: Radicals, rebels, and the code that changed everything

    If you’ve sent an encrypted message, you’ve felt the ripples of the cypherpunks. The impact is also evident if you’ve streamed on a privacy-first platform. Trading crypto connects you to their influence as well. Craig Jarvis’ paper, titled Cypherpunk ideology: objectives, profiles, and influences (1992–1998), explores this revolutionary movement from 1992 to 1998. It reveals layers of ideology, infighting, and audacious goals. These elements still shape the digital world today. But does the myth of the cypherpunks hold up under scrutiny?

    The cypherpunks weren’t just geeks in a chat room. They were digital insurgents with a mission. Their aim was to dismantle state control over communication, commerce, and privacy. These early privacy warriors used mailing lists as their battleground. They debated encryption policies. They dreamed up anonymity networks. In some cases, they proposed unsettling ideas like assassination markets.

    Timothy C. May’s Crypto Anarchist Manifesto framed cryptography as a weapon for the people, a way to cripple government surveillance and taxation. Bold? Absolutely. Realistic? Less clear. The paper explores how their ideals collided with practical hurdles. Challenges like scalability and ethics emerged. However, these ideals also birthed technologies like blockchain and cryptocurrencies.

    Code is law—but whose law?

    The ethos of “code is law” was one of the cypherpunks’ greatest contributions. This was a radical belief that software enforce freedom where governments couldn’t. Yet Jarvis critiques their limited engagement with real-world politics. Cypherpunks coded in pursuit of utopia. However, their sole reliance on tech ignored societal complexities. This oversight left gaps for authoritarian regimes to exploit the very tools they championed.

    Their methods also raise questions. Is distributing encryption tools a heroic act of resistance—or a reckless gamble? The paper doesn’t avoid these moral gray zones. It reminds us that unregulated cryptography is a shield for whistleblowers. It is also a shield for criminals.

    The punk aesthetic: Counterculture or contradiction?

    Let’s talk about the branding. The cypherpunks loved to emphasize their rebellious roots. They borrowed from hacker culture, dystopian sci-fi, and the counterculture of the ‘60s. But as Jarvis notes, they weren’t exactly punks in the traditional sense, more libertarian academics than leather-clad radicals. And their disdain for “the clueless 95%” reeks of elitism, undermining their claims to fight for universal freedom.

    Still, their imagery, tales of digital Davids taking on Orwellian Goliaths, captured imaginations. This romanticism persists in today’s crypto culture, even as its focus shifts from revolution to profit.

    Takeaway

    Jarvis’ study isn’t just a history lesson; it’s a reflection on the tension between ideals and outcomes. The cypherpunks achieved incredible things such as normalizing encryption, inspiring blockchain, and redefining digital privacy. But their vision of a decentralized, state-free utopia remains a work in progress. It is challenged by the very forces they sought to escape.

    Whether you see them as heroes or hypocrites, one thing is clear: the cypherpunks didn’t just write code. They wrote history.

    Craig Jarvis (2021): Cypherpunk ideology: objectives, profiles, and influences (1992–1998), Internet Histories, DOI: 10.1080/24701475.2021.1935547