> BlockFi made a false and misleading statement for more than two years on its website concerning the level of risk in its loan portfolio and lending activity.
As the order linked above indicates, BlockFi knowingly deceived investors. In the financial/investing context of this discussion, “to scheme” is to plan and execute deception, with intent of personal gain. Thus, my attempt to reword using your provided language rather than the order’s:
> BlockFi’s scheming led investors to believe that BlockFi was a lower-risk investment than it was in reality.
Note that any errors in translation from SEC wording to your provided terminology are my own, and that I’m making a good-faith effort to help build a verbal bridge from your confusion to an example of specific language in the order that addresses it. If my verbal bridge is insufficient, then please accept my apologies and I hope you’re able to find the answers you seek from others, or in the order itself.
> The order also finds that BlockFi made a false and misleading statement for more than two years on its website concerning the level of risk in its loan portfolio and lending activity.
Just because a scam hasn't imploded yet, doesn't mean it's not a scam.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. You want to use the product to some deeper degree, you should create an account, period. Don't like it, get off your pedestal and stop using the service. Geez.
You don't need to use these product or services, the choice is yours. If you derive value, you should assign that value a cost and that's exactly what we're seeing.
To be blunt, you seem like you're ranting and your conjecture is not wrong but just, opinionated.
