Not if it is algorithmically created, you don’t understand the nature of institutions, or the concept of intent. Intent to do the act, or facilitate customer trading using a tool that someone put into commerce without properly determining if it violated the law or not. Intent is “diffuse” in this context, and not what you think it is….
You don’t have to have what some people think, in order to get to the relevant “intent”… and the problem with a matured on bulletin boards or at investment managers is that they think they can hide behind tools, tools they may very well know are not kosher but that they can plausibly deny they knew were spoofing. But spoofing is a clear cut activity. All you need to prove is that there was actual spoofing, it doesn’t require the level of knowledge you think. It is just that the right cases have not yet been litigated. I suspect this is going to be the right case.
The reality is that people writing these things think that our laws clearly give them some sort of all clear sign to break the law, but we have a case law system where new technologies and ideas reveal themselves only gradually, and as the system becomes more aware of the nature of systems, they will apply the relevant rules. But the people who are doing these things, they think last year’s very poor case dictates how a court will perceive their activity. That is not true at all.
I own NWBO. My posts on iHub are always posted expressly as just my humble opinion (IMHO) and none are advice, just my opinion. I am NOT a financial advisor, and it is assumed that everyone is responsible for their own due diligence.
AI
