Practical business ethics: when is it appropriate to disclose one's vested interests?

No, it's not false. You harassed me to tell you if I had any vested interests or not. Now you are merely saying that is unethical if you have vested interests not to state them. I agree with the latter, as I have always done despite your misrepresentations, and I continue to not kowtow to the harassment to provide the former. Do you get it yet? I suspect you still don't.

I didn't call you stupid. I asked if you were really as stupid as that. Are you? You seem to miss the obvious difference, so I thought I'd ask. To wit:

Exchemist had no issue in identifying it, so why can't you?
To break it down for you:
1. It is ethical to disclose the vested interests you have when promoting something.
2. You should disclose whether or not you have any vested interests.

1. says that IF they have any vested interests then the ethical course would be to disclose - i.e. the result is only a disclosure if it is a positive disclosure of a vested interest. There is no need under this to disclose the absence of vested interests, or to disclose anything unless promoting - and "promoting" needs to be more than just expressing a casual opinion. At least in my view. Or maybe you want everyone disclosing vested interests before expressing opinions.

2. somewhat different, in that it is an insistence (through means such as continued harassment, for example) on disclosure of having no vested interests, if that is the case.

Do you yet see the difference? Or is it still beyond your grasp?

After all what? After you've changed the position you're taking?

I haven't disclosed whether I have or not, and I am not kowtowing to your harassment, out of principle, that I disclose whether I do or not. Now, it is up to you whether, having hopefully understood the distinction above, you believe I am acting in good faith and ethically, or not. If you don't, well, that's on you, not me.

I'll let you know if and when I ever "promote" Bitcoin to the level I feel warrants such disclosure. I have opinions, as I do on SpaceX, on Star Trek etc. Your standard would require everyone having an opinion to make such a disclosure. That's why it's nonsense.

Yes, and it is a very different position than just stating that it is ethical to disclose vested interests. Eyes open to the difference yet?

You did ask, and I am not answering, as I did not then, because it is/was not relevant to the points I made. I am not "promoting Bitcoin" in a manner that warrants it, and you have yet to demonstrate in any way that I have. Otherwise, as Tiassa highlighted to you, and as I have done in the past, that your standard requires anyone having an opinion on anything to disclose whether or not they have a vested interest.

It would James. I have never disagreed with that. It would also depend on what "promoting Bitcoin" entailed, as, so far, your standard of "promotion" is having a positive opinion of it. Like with SpaceX, or Star Trek. Or bananas. You have yet to show anything I have said warrants falling under this ethical duty.

I'm not answering one way or the other out of principle. Because your standard is nonsense, as explained multiple times and which remains unaddressed. And because there is a difference between someone choosing to declare a vested interest, and someone being harassed to answer whether they have one or not. But you seem to be blind to this difference.
And I am also not sharing an opinion with you to make you "rest easy" or not about what I say. You either accept it on its merits or you don't. For all you bang on about ad hominems you still can't get past that elephant in the room, can you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You haven't shown anything that warrants the level of "promoting Bitcoin" for ethical consideration. You've flustered and blustered about it, as if having a positive opinion alone warrants it. A nonsense standard. And as to refusing to answer, that is out of principle to highlight your ongoing harassment about it.
Simply put, you failed to really counter any points made about Bitcoin at the time, you don't understand it, you can't see why people have a positive opinion, so you assume, or at least look for, an alterior motive. That's all about you, James.

You have. I have highlighted above when you have been so. So please stop lying.

???I'm not talking about hypothetical vested interests.??? Where on earth have you dug that from??
Ah, I see. "in people needing to declare not the vested interests they might have..." Alas this is a misunderstanding on your part. I was referring to your standard requiring people to declare interests they might have (since I don't know whether they do or not, "might" is the correct word).

Harassment is a means of trying to impose your will upon the other person.

You're (a) suggesting a nonsense standard that you haven't yet supported, that would require anyone with an opinion to declare whether they have a vested interest or not, and (b) you've been harassing me to disclose. It's not a gun, no, but it's not exactly "take it or leave it", is it.

So you say. The relevance of his criticism of your standard is quite clear, even if you take offence at his examples. And the criticisms remain unaddressed by you.

You're now being delusional, I'm afraid. You have switched, from harassment to declare whether I have a vested interest or not, to a general notion that one should ethically declare vested interests if they promote. You can't see that difference, so I guess that's technically not dishonesty, just stupidity on your part. You have imposed, or tried to, through harassment. That much is clear for everyone to see. But then the dishonesty also comes from you still failing to show that anything I have said warrants ethical consideration, beyond being an opinion, the likes of which would see disclosures required for views on Star Trek, or SpaceX, or bananas, while continuing to harass.

Okay, so you're also blind. And I guess that's deliberate, so that again speaks to your honesty, eh. Ah, well.

You still don't get it, do you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Seriously, how stupid are you, really? I mean that with all sincerity as I'm not sure I can go much slower.

I apologise for continuing to not kowtow to your harassment. I apologise for continuing to pick apart your posts to show them for what they are. Sure, my own behaviour isn't beyond reproach, but that doesn't excuse your behaviour, does it.

You have failed morally. You have made egregious errors here, but remain blinkered to them, seemingly deliberately so, which would be another moral failing, I guess.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James, there is a difference between being interested in something and "promoting" it. There is a difference between owning some Bitcoin, stocks, bonds, real estate or anything else and having some "vested interest" that needs to be disclosed. Lumping that in the same category as being "paid to promote" or standing to gain is what is a nonsensical standard.

I could own some Apple stock and if I thought the latest iphone was the greatest thing since sliced bread I should ethically be able to point out what I liked about the iphone without having to disclose whether I owned Apple stock or not as it would be irrelevant.

My Apple stock wouldn't go up or down based on anything I said on Sciforums. It's the same with Bitcoin. You've posted that Bitcoin is just "gambling". You could say that about any investment but one generally wouldn't use that terminology. The less you know about something the more likely you are to feel that way though.

Whether you feel that way or not is also irrelevant but conflating interest in something (anything) with owning something vs being a paid promoter is what is nonsense. You tend to combine owning something into the same category as being a paid promoter. Whether it is or not, it appears to be a disingenuous tacit.

It's one thing when bots suddenly show up promoting something. It's another when a member that has been here for years is suddenly questioned as to whether they are a paid shill. That's not dissimilar to the Senator McCarthy hearing regarding Communism when everyone was asked "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"

It's insulting and badgering to continue with that line of questioning and then implying that everyone may not have your elevated sense of ethics. Even you must be chuckling when you write that....to be followed up with now run along Sarkus.

Why run every thread into the ground? It makes no sense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So if one is enthusiastic about something they are "promoting" it? If someone is misguided when some scientific subject is concerned are you being "paid to promote" that subject? I guess technically you are since your job (I believe?) is science related.

Does the level of your salary determine how much you "promote" subjects on this forum? Surely you understand that it makes no difference whether Sarkus has some Bitcoin or not? If everyone on this forum runs out and buys Bitcoin, for example, it make no difference in the price of Bitcoin.

That's why the question about being a paid promoter appears to be so "odd". It's also unusual since "we" are both long time members and there has been no evidence that we are "paid" to do anything regarding this forum.

I make comments about economics, business, politics and no one has ever thought that I was being "paid" to promote something. Why is Bitcoin so different?

You imply that I think it is the best thing since sliced bread simply because I have a mostly favorable view towards it. I feel the same way regarding the stock market, real estate market, the internet, AI, etc. Is the next step to suggest that I'm paid in those areas as well?

I think you know that is nonsense.

 

I don't need educating on supply and demand but maybe you do?

 

You are making an unwarranted assumption in saying Sarkus finds it "difficult" to answer your - somewhat impertinent - question to him. The rest of us can see it's not difficult for him. He considers the question out of order and refuses to answer on principle, that's all. He's even told you that. (While admittedly I might not feel I would have to make a point of principle out of a point like this, he's apparently in a bit of a strop with you for other reasons, so.... QED.) It's not, er hard.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As for supply and demand, the obvious point is there are so few readers on this moribund forum that their collective purchasing power is the square root of fuck-all. So it would make so sense for a paid promoter to focus his or her efforts here, of all places, if the intention was to move the price. Again, it's not hard.

 

I have. Yet here we are.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

At some point a line in the sand has to be drawn. As for "strop", not at all. Having a disagreement with someone whose posts I find to be pervasive with the dishonesty that, because of their position, goes unchecked, is not what I would consider a strop. Anymore than any other argument, that is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As it is, this particular point of principle is worthy of discussion.
To me it boils down, at least in part, to whether one is willing to communicate in good faith. If one is, one leaves it to the other to disclose or not, assuming that they are capable of acting as ethics might suggest. If not, one harasses and insists upon disclosure: "I don't think we need to wait to catch a criminal "red handed" before enquiring as to whether a crime might have occurred." Is this someone who seems willing to take people as acting in good faith until proven otherwise?

I think you meant "no sense".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, let's... taking the parts you've presumably bolded as being indicative of "promotion"

• "All you need is access to the internet, a bank account, and some suitable ID." - Is this not factually correct? And this is in response to someone who was already thinking of buying, and had wanted to, but thought the process difficult.
• "... and then you can have your fun." - wow, scraping the barrel much, JamesR? Again, this was in reply to someone already looking to buy, and thinking the process difficult. Of course, you can feel free to take things out of context.
  
• "... Alternatively you are free to take your coins from the exchange's wallet and put them in your own." - And this is promoting cryptocurrencies... how, exactly? This is no more promoting them than saying that one is free to take money out of their fiat bank account and store it as cash. And you specifically think saying "you are free to" is promotion??? It's promotion to say that people are free to do things with what they own? Goodness. I never knew.

  Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  
  
• "My usb device arrived in 3 days - and I don't even have Prime." - again, WOW! It's promoting crypto to say how quickly Amazon deliver products?
• "So if you store currency at any address your device spits out, it is yours, and unhackable unless someone steals both your device and all the security that goes with it" - again, how is this promotion of cryptocurrency to say that what is in someone's wallet is theirs, and that a cold wallet is unhackable (unless as explained)? These are, again, facts. They're not opinion. They are neutral as to the benefits of crypto, just as saying that the money in your fiat account is yours and safe (unless the bank goes bust and you have more than is guaranteed by the government) is neutral on the benefits of fiat money. Promotion? Good one!
  
• "Timing the market is always difficult. But if you have money you're willing to lose for the chance of a significant upside... it's not a bad bit of speculation." - finally you get to something that is actual opinion. But where is the promotion that warrants ethical consideration of disclosing vested interest? Have I indicated which crypto? Have I failed to warn that it is a highly risky investment where you could lose everything? That it is speculation rather than anything more substantial? No, this is just casual opinion, no more than that, and is certainly not the promotion you want to make it out to be.
  
• "Many might now think that this is perfect time to buy into crypto for the long-term, but it may still sink further. Plus the global economy means people are steering clear of what they perceive as riskier assets/gambles, and with less disposable income (because of inflation, recession etc) there's no immediate sign of any recovery in the land of cryptos. What the long-term has in store, however, is anyone's guess." - again, somewhat scraping the barrel with this one, JamesR. Yes it is opinion, but it is not promoting. In fact it is doing pretty much the opposite: it sets up that most might think now is an ideal time, and suggests the opposite. This is actually discouragement. And then caps it with the factual observation that the future is anyone's to guess. Promotion? No. Clearly not.
  
• "Bitcoin offers a store of value, underpinned by the sentiment and willing of those playing along." - another factual statement. Promotion? No, clearly not. The term "playing along" also suggests that it is all a game, a gamble, which it is at the moment. But promotion? No.

Right, what else?
"That doesn't affect Bitcoin..." - well, unfortunately from here on you've inadvertently attributed me to things that Seattle wrote, which I'd like to believe was an honest mistake on your part, but you're stretching my credibility. Anyhoo, I'm not going to respond to them.

So, is that it?

Sure, call what I've written "promotion" if you want, JamesR, but it's quite clear from your examples that it is no such thing, at least not to an extent that warrants any form of disclosure, nor the ongoing harassment you're conducting against me, and the fallacious ad hominems that you're happy to fling around. That you have wanted to make such an issue of it speaks only about you.

I guess compared to the continued denigration by the ignorant, it might seem such. But as you've exampled, it really isn't all that.

"wild enthusiasm". Lol! You're really just showing your blinkered ignorance and desire to harass. I have been nothing if not balanced. But I guess to someone like you, with such a negative view, anything even approaching a balanced view must be "promoting" it, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You have, but as shown above, they really don't do what you intend, which rather suggests your standard for being regarded as "promotion" is nonsense.

Sure, they can speculate or not. Much like with Bitcoin itself. But thanks to you they will be left wondering over something that is entirely irrelevant. Oh, the horror of it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again, this speaks more about your paranoia, and your inability to have discussions in good faith. I am not angry, just frustrated with you, and your continuing harassment. I have explained adequately why I am not disclosing: a matter of principle, one taken to make a point about this nonsense standard you are insisting upon, insisting not as a moderator but as a poster who is constantly harassing me to do so.

So, once again, please stop harassing me. I've asked you many times already to stop doing so, yet here you are, unable to stop yourself. As said, this issue is all about you, JamesR.

 

I did. Fat fingers and poor eyesight are a problem.

 

Out of curiosity, how much do you think would need to flow into Bitcoin to make its price move, oh, I don't know, let's say, upward 1%, which is far less than the typical daily movements you get due to its high volatility at present? What do you think? 10k? 100k? A million, perhaps? Just gauging if you comprehend the scale of the beast. And bear in mind that 1% is not unusual for the fees associated with trading, although can be obtained lower. So just to move the price sufficiently to cover the cost of the trade, say, how much do you think you'd need to see flowing in to Bitcoin? Any idea at all? You could look it up, if you want.

 

That is, or at least was the point of this thread, is/was it not? I mean, given that the title expressly asks the question of when rather suggests that. However, in your effort to continue harassment, you have, once again, turned it into being all about you and your inability to discuss with people under the assumption of good faith.

Nothing I have mentioned, discussed, stated, claimed etc, comes close to "promoting", as clearly established by the examples you tried to claim did show it. So, other than by you, there is no perception that I am promoting it. Other than by you, who for some reason simply wants to harass. No one other than you has this nonsense standard of what "promotion" means.
Heck, you're not even discussing the matter that you raised this thread for, but instead simply asserting a nonsense standard and continuing to harass me with it. You have dismally failed to show that I am promoting it to the degree that warrants any disclosure, and what is more you seem simply incapable of assuming that people are able to discuss in good faith.
You even stated: "I don't think we need to wait to catch a criminal 'red handed' before enquiring as to whether a crime might have occurred." This is an admission, by you, that you don't accept people as discussing in good faith. And so you harass them to disclose. And you think you are acting morally superior? Your hypocrisy is evident for all to see.

No, you don't know. Out of principle. Due to your continued harassment. Due to the nonsense of your standard, when you can't even support your claim that I'm "promoting" Bitcoin to a degree whereby one is not otherwise required to disclose whether they have interests in SpaceX, or Star Trek, if they, too, share positive opinions of those.

WTF??? Do you know how this hypothetical is utter nonsense? Because this is an anonymous forum. I don't know the real names of anyone here. I don't know who they are, so how the fuck would I be able to claim that a certain transaction is due to my so-called "promotion"? You're not only scraping the bottom of the barrel with your efforts to support your nonsense standard, James, but you're now fabricating impossible scenarios as if they are meaningful. You can't be that stupid, can you? No, it's all to continue to harass me to disclose rather than you have to just assume that I am acting in good faith. As said, this is all about you, James, and your failings. These efforts to conjure up excuses just shows how desperate you are.

And I have explained why, James. To make a point. Yet still you continue with your harassment. You should be ashamed of youself. Maybe you need to take time away from this site and get your head together, because you're really not doing yourself any favours pursuing this.

That's not what you're doing, though, James, and you can't seem to see the difference, despite others having no difficulty with it whatsoever. You are not leaving it to me to disclose that I have vested interests, but because you are unable to assume that someone discusses in good faith, you are insisting, through your ongoing harassment, that I disclose whether I do or not.

I've explained why I've refused to say, James. Others have explained to you as well. Yet you continue to harass me. Despite repeated requests for you to stop. So I ask again: please stop harassing me. You're a moderator. You should know better than to continue behaviour that would get regular posters moderated.

I have gone through those bolded examples of mine (not the ones of Seattle that you misallocated to me), and have shown them to be either factual or merely a positive opinion akin to liking Star Trek, or SpaceX, etc. That they show no "promotion" speaks only to your paranoia, your desire to harass, the nonsense standard you are trying to insist on, and your inability to assume good faith. So here we are.

Grow up, you miserable little man. You come up with a standard for disclosure that you have failed to support to be anything other than nonsense, you continually harass me with it, try to paint me as being ethically deficient, and you wonder why I'm belligerent?

This is all about you, James. No one else. You have tried to make a point, and it has backfired. You have effectively stated that you don't assume people to act in good faith, and that is all on you. You have harassed, and continue to, despite now also trying to say that it is up to that person. Dishonest much?
Your honesty - or lack thereof - is your own business... until it's not, until you spread it across the various threads you partake in. Maybe if you actually acted with the decency, honesty, and moral fibre that you so want others to see you as having, rather than what you actually display, and maybe if you weren't so clearly desperate for validation, this site wouldn't be so moribund.

Head in the sand, much? Yeah, let's put it all down to the other person rather than their criticisms of your arguments and position. I mean, what's another fallacious ad hominem from you, right. Sheesh.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

James R, you do know that if you simply assume that Sarkus, and others, act in good faith, and ethically, then you already have the answer you want?

You accept that if someone acts ethically then they will declare their vested interest, if they have one.
Did Sarkus declare any vested interest, before your obvious harassment of him (and yes, it is obviously so)?
No, he did not.
If you assume he acts in good faith and ethically, you thus have your answer.

Your failure to realise that might speak, as Sarkus has pointed out, to you not making such assumptions.
You pushing him to disclose whether or not he has any vested interests (which is a different matter than simply saying it is ethical for someone to disclose, for if you assume they act ethically then you assume they will disclose without being asked) thus seems to be down to you not believing he is acting ethically.
On what grounds do you do that?
It can’t be that he hasn’t declared any vested interests, as that would be a fallacy of begging the question.
Is it perhaps, as he has highlighted, that you want to live in a police state, where you can interrogate people to confirm their innocence?
And as such you assume no one is acting ethically or in good faith?
Recall: “I don't think we need to wait to catch a criminal "red handed" before enquiring as to whether a crime might have occurred” – James R (#59)
This assumes “criminal” a priori, does it not?
Guilty unless you say you’re innocent, which is odd in and of itself, as why believe someone if you assume they are guilty.

And for a moderator to take that position is somewhat troubling for this site.

A suggestion, therefore: assume a priori that others act both ethically and in good faith.
Do so, and you have your answer here, do you not?
Do not do so and the question you are asking is ultimately irrelevant anyway, as you would not believe what he says.
Which means that you asking really is just for purposes of harassment.

 

James R, unfortunately it is you who is entirely in the wrong in this matter.
No, I don't have a vested interest in defending Sarkus, beyond wanting you to stop your harassment, for your own benefit, and the benefit of this thread.
He is clearly quite capable of defending himself.

You began by not assuming that Sarkus was discussing in good faith or ethically, as if you had you would have gotten the answer you wanted without even needing to ask.
You continued by harassing him to provide an answer, to which he took a principled stance not to.
That is not unethical of him, but actually quite the moral thing to do, to stand up to perceived harassment, and what he, and others, saw as an unreasonable standard.

Your criticism of Sarkus of "not being able to stop himself", and subsequent comments, also very much describes you, unfortunately.
Which may be why you clash so often these days.
Is he currently angry?
I think most would be when anyone, let alone a moderator, harasses them as you have done.
And it is very much harassment.
You set up this thread to discuss when it is appropriate to disclose, not to attack an individual (or two) for not abiding by your standard.
That is harassment by you.
Not accepting he was acting in good faith means that any answer he gave would not be believed, but you continued to attack him for not abiding by your standard, and not disclosing whether he had a vested interest or not.
That is harassment by you.
You continue to call into question his moral and ethical position, yet there is nothing in what he has said that warrants such accusations.

You claim you have tried to stop this, yet he has asked you many times, has he not, to stop harassing him.
Have you done so?
No, you have not.

And finally, is the standard you are applying to "promotion" sensible?
No.
Clearly it is not, as Sarkus, Tiassa, exchemist have explained.
You have tried to example evidence of "promotion" in what Sarkus has said, yet no reasonable person would see those comments as you have done as being "promotion".
It is an unreasonable standard.
Unfortunately you just want to dismiss the criticisms as being because people have a dislike of you, or some such.
Maybe they are seeing it as unreasonable because it actually is.
And it is.

I get that you may have a different standard to everyone else, and that is not a problem.
Surely it is discussion of what those standards are that this thread was set up to discuss, right?
To use it to continually ask someone to disclose, based solely on your standard, yes, it is harassment by you.
To use it to attack that person's character, as you have done, is harassment by you.
Yet you criticise Sarkus for attacking yours in response.

Now, you can take this criticism of you however you want.
You can dismiss it entirely if you feel I'm only doing it because Sarkus is a friend.
Or, maybe you can take the criticism on board as offered in good faith, because in these matters you are completely out of order.