Your argument hinges on the assumption that complexity equates to deception, but that’s another oversimplification that ignores the nuances of structured finance.
First, calling the deals “convoluted” assumes that complexity is inherently a red flag. In reality, innovative financial instruments, especially those involving tokenization and regulatory compliance, often require intricate structuring. That doesn’t mean they are designed to mislead, it means they are designed to function within legal and market constraints.
Second, your assertion that “active imaginations fill in the blanks with rosy assumptions” is a blanket dismissal of investors’ ability to analyze and assess risk. Investors, especially those involved in innovative products, conduct due diligence, and many understand the structure far better than you give them credit for. Suggesting otherwise undermines the sophistication of the market participants engaging with these products.
Third, you imply that the structure was intentionally designed to “create hype” for conversion and selling, but that lacks substantiation. Conversions and sales are standard mechanisms in financing; they don’t inherently indicate manipulation. If your argument is that the structuring is unusual, that’s a different conversation from suggesting it was done purely for hype.
Instead of dismissing the deals outright, a more constructive approach would be to dissect the actual mechanics and provide clear explanations of what you believe is problematic, beyond simply calling them “convoluted.”
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
