Resolves YES if Sokolowski v. Digital Currency Group, Inc., 4:25-cv-00001, (M.D. Penn.) survives defendants' motion to dismiss (e.g., 12(b)(6) or a bankruptcy related motion), In the event that such a motion is granted in part, I will resolve to a % based off of the number of defendants and claims remaining (e.g., a MTD which results in the dismissal of 2 of 3 parties will result in a 33% resolution).
Resolves NO if a motion is granted in full; or plaintiffs dismiss the suit with or without prejudice prior to the last deadline for defendants to file such a motion.
The docket can be found here (or on PACER here). A copy of the original complaint can be found here.
1,000
3.00@kopecs A realistic outcome here is also the case being dismissed without prejudice for failure to make service.
It’s sad to see something that looks like it probably is a legitimate issue end up with a chatGPT’d botched attempt which includes 20 pages of a random podcast interview. The guy is intent on turning himself into the “Chris Chan” of this site for no reason and is openly sharing his own address, etc. while engaging in this humiliation performance. No good will come of this and I think the on going markets have the potential to spiral into a dark place.
@LiamZ It's a legitimate issue that's already in the courts. I agree with you that it's sad that this fellow doesn't seem to be able to go with the flow. He went from a failed small claims court filing to trying to be a full-time pro se litigant due to the "magic of chatGPT".
@LiamZ I agree that it is sad. And this is probably not the most productive way of getting eyes on the consequences of "AI"-enabled delusion, but I do not think anything I post on here will realistically impact Steve's behaviour and I think there is some value in tracking and quantifying it, even if this is not the most orthodox way of doing so.
@kopecs I don't think anyone is saying that it isn't fair game, it's just a sad state of affairs, and "AI-enabled delusion" is a pretty spot-on way to say it.
Among my first Manifold gimme bets were on Steve's UFO and alien markets.
A more fundamental problem with this case is apparent from actually reading the Complaint.
On what basis did Plaintiffs think they could earn "interest" from BTC without risk? This is obviously not a FDIC insured product.
To the extent there is "fraud" here, which I'm saying there isn't, that issue is already being litigated. It is unfair to Defendant to have to litigate this multiple times in multiple forums.
There is no question this case is not going to work, but there is a real issue about what the resolution will be. I think a dismissal without prejudice is a likely result here.