Is this not shilling but information sharing?

[Crypt0Gore]

Is it possible that all those crypto influencers we know and hear stuffs about could face market manipulation charges under new regulation law that's coming? ...

Is there popular word ' Not a Financial Advice' not enough to safe them from what's coming?

Since they warned people about doing their own research too, isn't this enough to break them free?

[1715233637]

1715233637

[1715233637]

1715233637

[1715233637]

1715233637

[NeuroticFish]

Is it possible that all those crypto influencers we know and hear stuffs about could face market manipulation charges under new regulation law that's coming? ...

Is there popular word ' Not a Financial Advice' not enough to safe them from what's coming?

Since they warned people about doing their own research too, isn't this enough to break them free?

I don't know the new regulations, but I had the same kind of question when Kim Kardashian was fined.
And I've got my answer for that case: no matter she said "not a financial advice", she should also have been stating that she was shilling because she was paid to do so.
See the answer here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5415840.msg61066113#msg61066113

And crypto influencers may indeed have the same fate because I expect many of them are paid to advertise this or that project now and then.
So the NFA part is sometimes not enough, by the law.

[DdmrDdmr]

<…>

I suspect there may be closer looks into what and how they promote, though each country will proceed according to it’s own regulation, and that is not homogeneous.

To provide an example, Spain was pretty laxed on the matter of publicity and influencers, until it suddenly determined to take a tougher approach: It now requires cypto related publicity to play by a given ruleset, with a mandatory pre-communication of the campaign for those aiming at over 100K potential viewers of the campaign. This is allegedly due to EU requirements, and thus, being so, I’d expect to see something alike spreading around the EU soon.

Just last week, the CNMV, who is in charge of implementing an pursuing the above, indicated that it had detected a group of around 50 influencers that do not seem to comply with the rules when promoting or providing cripo advice (theoretically, they need to know what they’re on about, be objective, expose any conflicts of interests, and so forth).

DYOR or alike is not a valid clause to exempt them from needing to comply and be scrutinized by the CNMV (in Spain). This is fairly new though, so we’ve yet to see how it plays out in practice.

[cryptoaddictchie]

Is there popular word ' Not a Financial Advice' not enough to safe them from what's coming?

Usually when there is a statement like this maybe an influencer is either paid for promotions or have bags on it when it still low. Im not really sure about regulation about that but NeuroticFish gave an example so I guess same also for those influencers. The thing is majority of them are anon, unlike Kim Kardashan, that is a high profile influencer. It will take time if theres a proven guilty of promoting scams.

[Lucius]

Is this not shilling but information sharing?

Don't be naive and ask such a question, because do you really think that most people spend their precious time to share any useful information, without having any personal (financial) interest in it all?

When it comes to cryptocurrencies, I am absolutely in favor of bringing some order to all the chaos that reigns on social networks. Promoting various crypto projects has become a lucrative business, but it results in great financial losses for many people and all those who participate in it should be held accountable for their actions.

"It is not financial advice" cannot be enough, nor can it release them from responsibility for what they say and write. I am not against freedom of expression, but I am in favor of seriously dealing with all these scammers at all levels, which result in billions of dollars/euros in damage every year.

[tvplus006]

Is it possible that all those crypto influencers we know and hear stuffs about could face market manipulation charges under new regulation law that's coming? ...

Everyone knows the fact that Elon Musk is regularly engaged in shilling dogecoin coins, but I think it will be impossible to bring him to justice. Since they never openly called for the purchase of Doge, and everyone could interpret his publication of the photo in their own way.

[Lordsilvabtc]

Well I read about this news as well, And to be honest with you, I really don't think this would have a greater effects on those influencers, looking at their mode of operandi, you will discover that they made mentioned that at your discretion, Do your own research which is the best advice, anyone can ever give in the crypto world, Secondly every Content can be defined or explained differently, Take a look at Elon Musk shilling DogeCoin, watch he's choice of words, you will discovered that they're always very very constructive, beside with he's groundbreaking records, there's no way you can bring such an iconic man to Justice, Because he's method of shilling is simply unique and imaginable as he's own thoughts. So shilling with different explaination, I expect all influencers to come out victoriously on this. But we're to see the ruglatiom, The points and element which might incurred any sanctions

[jackg]

They might just move country too to somewhere with less regulations. There's enough places for most countries where people can set up businesses off shore and still return back if they ever needed to but don't infringe on laws by only making content on an explicit side of a border. There's enough influencers that seem to enjoy travelling anyway.

A lot of influencers might also be hard to find or hard to prove they've broken laws. I imagine some participate in pump and dump schemes and find other ways to be paid (perhaps they know the coin won't do well and short the dump, maybe they buy in before making their post and sell at a fixed rate profit - like 10%).

[Coyster]

First of all, imo i think people should do their own research and not just invest in a project because one of their favorite celebrity thinks it is a good project, or because one influencer has good things to say about the project, people should be responsible for their actions, it is their money and they should be careful with what they invest it in.

Having said that, some of this shillers/influencers know nothing about the projects they are promoting, they themselves haven't invested even a cent in them and they never directly tell anyone to buy them, they are just paid to say whatsoever good thing they say about the project, it is unethical, but to be fair some of them don't even know if the project will succeed or not, for instance if the project succeeds then no eyebrows will be raised.

[The Cryptovator]

Sharing something or promoting something won't be financial advice at all. Everyone should take their own decisions when it's a matter of money. Influencers mean they will influence you to invest, but for safety reasons, they mention about not financial advice. This means you are the one who has to take the risk of your investment. It's basic things in crypto do your own research. If you make a profit it's yours, if you lost then it's yours as well. Don't trust anyone suddenly after seeing the video or whatever.

[TravelMug]

Is it possible that all those crypto influencers we know and hear stuffs about could face market manipulation charges under new regulation law that's coming? ...

Is there popular word ' Not a Financial Advice' not enough to safe them from what's coming?

Since they warned people about doing their own research too, isn't this enough to break them free?

I don't think that "Not a Financial Advice" disclaimer will be enough for the regulators not to come with this all crypto influencer.

Specially the big fish here,  and for sure if the new regulations take effect, this influencers knows what coming from them, so maybe they will have to find another way to not obviously shill for certain projects.

[Darker45]

Not all crypto influencers probably. I don't know who these crypto influencers you are referring to, but I assume not all of them are paid shills. I suppose there are influencers that are promoting certain coins or projects only because they are heavily invested in them, or perhaps certain influencers who made their own independent and objective assessments. In other words, they're not hired to promote coins or projects. They're different from influencers who are plainly shilling for coins and projects because they're paid to do so.

[philipma1957]

Is it possible that all those crypto influencers we know and hear stuffs about could face market manipulation charges under new regulation law that's coming? ...

Is there popular word ' Not a Financial Advice' not enough to safe them from what's coming?

Since they warned people about doing their own research too, isn't this enough to break them free?

I don't know the new regulations, but I had the same kind of question when Kim Kardashian was fined.
And I've got my answer for that case: no matter she said "not a financial advice", she should also have been stating that she was shilling because she was paid to do so.
See the answer here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5415840.msg61066113#msg61066113

And crypto influencers may indeed have the same fate because I expect many of them are paid to advertise this or that project now and then.
So the NFA part is sometimes not enough, by the law.

Which is why Musk purchased Twitter.

 He can talk about Twitter as much as he wants since no one is paying him to say it. He also says he buys it and allows it to buy gear from Tesla = legal.

If he has 10 billion coins as I type  and drives price to 4 bucks over next few years Twitter will be well worth the money he spent to buy it.

[Apocollapse]

They should put the word of "Not a financial advice" in the top page of their website, they must increase the font size and make it bold! this will make people who visit the site doesn't need to waste their time to read a stranger's opinion. Most of them put it below of the page and sometime they write in small font, which make people wouldn't focus on that's part.

It's shilling, but they just act like it they're didn't.

[Wexnident]

The thing is in most cases, their so-called "information sharing" can be called an advertisement (and that's what they're paid for), and not really, well, proper sharing. Telling it's NFA or DYOR may be able to prevent most people from being scammed/influenced negatively, but it isn't an excuse for people to scam/influence others negatively, especially if they were paid to do so.

In cases of influencers being an avid fan of certain coins, pretty sure they'd have enough of an understanding of it to know the pros and cons of the said coin, unlike paid shills.

[adzino]

Is it possible that all those crypto influencers we know and hear stuffs about could face market manipulation charges under new regulation law that's coming? ...

Is there popular word ' Not a Financial Advice' not enough to safe them from what's coming?

Since they warned people about doing their own research too, isn't this enough to break them free?

You can say it is "not a financial advice" when you are "sharing information" or giving your opinions. But if you are paid to do this, you must disclose that you are getting paid or else you face a risk of getting into legal troubles. It is because people must know that you are advertising and you are getting paid for promoting the crypto project or anything similar. This helps people to be aware that whatever they are listening to it is bullshit and all biased information.

[stompix]

Not all crypto influencers probably. I don't know who these crypto influencers you are referring to, but I assume not all of them are paid shills. I suppose there are influencers that are promoting certain coins or projects only because they are heavily invested in them, or perhaps certain influencers who made their own independent and objective assessments. In other words, they're not hired to promote coins or projects. They're different from influencers who are plainly shilling for coins and projects because they're paid to do so.

Not all, 99.9(9)%.
And you basically just said it yourself, if you're heavily invested in something and you advertise it for others with the obvious purpose of rising the price then, how do you call this but shilling? There is not a single "influencer" out there who promotes shittokens or NFT just for fun, they all either have a share in those or they are getting paid, it makes no sense to waste hours making videos for nothing.

Just look at what happened with Kim:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5415840.0

Do you see what token she was promoting?
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ethereummax/
A 5k rank, yeah ranked 5000 by market cap shitcoin that is just a copy-paste project with the same gimmicks as 5000 others.

I never though that MICA would do something good for the community but at least, this thing is one huge thing that will cut a low of shills, a lot of spam, a lot of scammy projects and money-grabbing schemes.

If he has 10 billion coins as I type  and drives price to 4 bucks over next few years Twitter will be well worth the money he spent to buy it.

That sounds like buying a Marriot hotel to advertise the Pretzel shop on the other side of the road.
Dogecoin has a 17 billion market cap, he has spent 44 billion for a platform that had a net loss of $1 billion in 2020 to shill some coins?

[Techkoy407]

Is it possible that all those crypto influencers we know and hear stuffs about could face market manipulation charges under new regulation law that's coming? ...

Is there popular word ' Not a Financial Advice' not enough to safe them from what's coming?

Since they warned people about doing their own research too, isn't this enough to break them free?

The influencer is only in charge of promoting and advertising, so the possibility of manipulation is very small, because he doesn't own the crypto and he gets paid after advertising the crypto.
So I think influencers who manipulate the market are not fair.

[Obari]

Is it possible that all those crypto influencers we know and hear stuffs about could face market manipulation charges under new regulation law that's coming? ...

Is there popular word ' Not a Financial Advice' not enough to safe them from what's coming?

Since they warned people about doing their own research too, isn't this enough to break them free?

I don't know the new regulations, but I had the same kind of question when Kim Kardashian was fined.
And I've got my answer for that case: no matter she said "not a financial advice", she should also have been stating that she was shilling because she was paid to do so.
See the answer here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5415840.msg61066113#msg61066113

And crypto influencers may indeed have the same fate because I expect many of them are paid to advertise this or that project now and then.
So the NFA part is sometimes not enough, by the law.

Same thing applies here when I first heard of the Kim's fine over promoting a stuff despite stating it wasn't a financial advice, not until I found out she was paid for it.
In most countries like mine, majority of this influencers aren't paid for the promotion they do,
They only make some personal researches, being a referral link and possibly earn from the link and not been paid directly by anyone, hence I guess they're free from any persecution, and I think this is not a financial advice can truly be referenced in this case.

[philipma1957]

Not all crypto influencers probably. I don't know who these crypto influencers you are referring to, but I assume not all of them are paid shills. I suppose there are influencers that are promoting certain coins or projects only because they are heavily invested in them, or perhaps certain influencers who made their own independent and objective assessments. In other words, they're not hired to promote coins or projects. They're different from influencers who are plainly shilling for coins and projects because they're paid to do so.

Not all, 99.9(9)%.
And you basically just said it yourself, if you're heavily invested in something and you advertise it for others with the obvious purpose of rising the price then, how do you call this but shilling? There is not a single "influencer" out there who promotes shittokens or NFT just for fun, they all either have a share in those or they are getting paid, it makes no sense to waste hours making videos for nothing.

Just look at what happened with Kim:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5415840.0

Do you see what token she was promoting?
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ethereummax/
A 5k rank, yeah ranked 5000 by market cap shitcoin that is just a copy-paste project with the same gimmicks as 5000 others.

I never though that MICA would do something good for the community but at least, this thing is one huge thing that will cut a low of shills, a lot of spam, a lot of scammy projects and money-grabbing schemes.

If he has 10 billion coins as I type  and drives price to 4 bucks over next few years Twitter will be well worth the money he spent to buy it.

That sounds like buying a Marriot hotel to advertise the Pretzel shop on the other side of the road.
Dogecoin has a 17 billion market cap, he has spent 44 billion for a platform that had a net loss of $1 billion in 2020 to shill some coins?

he sees what i see in doge.
and he will be able to play it.

and make money over and over and over.

doge was at 75 billion and he crashed it on sat night live by calling it a hustle.

by then he was sitting pretty with his positions on doge.

this is a cash cow he can legally play with it.  and he can use twitter via his account .

jan 1 2021 doge = 1 billion
peaked at 85 billion in april-may 2021
was down to 8 billion a month ago
up to 17 billion now.

so 85-1= 84 billion gain of which he pushed.
17- 8 = 9 billion gain of which he pushed

84+9= 93 billion in gains much of which pushed.

seems to me he grabbed a lot of that 93.

it also seems to me he can seesaw it over and over and over.

lets clock the moves the next 2 years i think it will be at least 93 billion more which he gets a lot of it.

[Darker45]

Not all crypto influencers probably. I don't know who these crypto influencers you are referring to, but I assume not all of them are paid shills. I suppose there are influencers that are promoting certain coins or projects only because they are heavily invested in them, or perhaps certain influencers who made their own independent and objective assessments. In other words, they're not hired to promote coins or projects. They're different from influencers who are plainly shilling for coins and projects because they're paid to do so.

Not all, 99.9(9)%.
And you basically just said it yourself, if you're heavily invested in something and you advertise it for others with the obvious purpose of rising the price then, how do you call this but shilling? There is not a single "influencer" out there who promotes shittokens or NFT just for fun, they all either have a share in those or they are getting paid, it makes no sense to waste hours making videos for nothing.

Just look at what happened with Kim:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5415840.0

Do you see what token she was promoting?
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ethereummax/
A 5k rank, yeah ranked 5000 by market cap shitcoin that is just a copy-paste project with the same gimmicks as 5000 others.

I never though that MICA would do something good for the community but at least, this thing is one huge thing that will cut a low of shills, a lot of spam, a lot of scammy projects and money-grabbing schemes.

All I'm saying is that not all crypto influencers will probably fall within the circumstances surrounding Kim's case. In which case, they wouldn't be fined or penalized for possible unlawful promotion of coins or projects. Kim's case has something to do disclosure, and it's because she was plainly a paid shill.

If I were a crypto influencer who repeatedly promote Bitcoin and even financially advise others to invest heavily in it, I think I wouldn't be fined like Kim. My reason for promoting it could either be that I'm heavily invested in Bitcoin myself or that I objectively find Bitcoin worth investing, but not because I'm paid to do it.

[tabas]

Is it possible that all those crypto influencers we know and hear stuffs about could face market manipulation charges under new regulation law that's coming? ...

They're just relying to the sources that they've read in the internet. If they've got an insider then they're something but usually, that's the reality. They're just resourceful to research things related to the market because that's how they work, they're looking for contents so that's one of it that they shall share to their audiences. And that's why they're always putting some disclaimer before while they're releasing those contents they make.

Is there popular word ' Not a Financial Advice' not enough to safe them from what's coming?

Since they warned people about doing their own research too, isn't this enough to break them free?

It depends, if the information they're telling are truly misleading, they could face consequences depending on how heavy their blows are. Or, they are promoting scam projects. Take these examples;

• Founders of a cryptocurrency backed by Floyd Mayweather charged with fraud by SEC
• Kim Kardashian wasn't the only celebrity who dabbled in crypto ads, but many won't face charges

[ultrloa]

Is it possible that all those crypto influencers we know and hear stuffs about could face market manipulation charges under new regulation law that's coming? ...

Is there popular word ' Not a Financial Advice' not enough to safe them from what's coming?

Since they warned people about doing their own research too, isn't this enough to break them free?

Those warnings are not enough since people always go blind with money shown as proof that they should go with it and be rich. That's why we see many people got scam eventhough there's a lot of warnings posted by good influencers and legal authorities.

If this Do your own research will be in the minds always and have doubts on things you don't know or decline all the offers which is to good to be true for sure no people will get scam on ponzi schemes.

[Pmalek]

The essence of the idea is that the influencers will need to declare if they were paid for the promotion. If they were but they don't mention it in their video campaigns/shills, that could get them fined.

This won't change much, and it opens new opportunities to play with the viewers. If I was an influencer, I would say: this is a sponsored video. I was hired by *insert name* to post this content because I believe in its long term future. I see it reaching the stars, bla, bla, bla. DYOR, etc., etc. I think I have done enough not to get myself in trouble with regulators and I can now continue with my shilling campaign. 

[kryptqnick]

Is it possible that all those crypto influencers we know and hear stuffs about could face market manipulation charges under new regulation law that's coming? ...

Is there popular word ' Not a Financial Advice' not enough to safe them from what's coming?

Since they warned people about doing their own research too, isn't this enough to break them free?

What's the new law, under which jurisdiction it's going to be (in which country)? You should edit the post and include the reference to what you're talking about specifically. Otherwise, it's impossible to assess who is going to face which charges because we have no idea what the law is going to require.
I do hope that stricter regulation is coming in this regard because sponsorships must be openly disclosed, so that people can make their decisions based on this knowledge. So yeah, 'not a financial advice' shouldn't be enough to get away with shilling. But IMO, this should cover all promoted content, not just crypto-related one.

[stompix]

All I'm saying is that not all crypto influencers will probably fall within the circumstances surrounding Kim's case. In which case, they wouldn't be fined or penalized for possible unlawful promotion of coins or projects. Kim's case has something to do disclosure, and it's because she was plainly a paid shill.

If I were a crypto influencer who repeatedly promote Bitcoin and even financially advise others to invest heavily in it, I think I wouldn't be fined like Kim. My reason for promoting it could either be that I'm heavily invested in Bitcoin myself or that I objectively find Bitcoin worth investing, but not because I'm paid to do it.

Here is the paragraph in question:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020PC0593

The following behaviour shall, inter alia, be considered as market manipulation:

taking advantage of occasional or regular access to the traditional or electronic media by voicing an opinion about a crypto-asset, while having previously taken positions on that crypto-asset, and profiting subsequently from the impact of the opinions voiced on the price of that crypto-asset, without having simultaneously disclosed that conflict of interest to the public in a proper and effective way.

As simple as it gets, you don't disclose you have a ton of coins that you promote or "voice your opinion" it means market manipulation.
You start your video telling your fans that you're 200k in debt, took 3 mortgages on the house, and have a loanshark stalking you cause you bought 100 BTC , then you might get away with it. 

[teosanru]

Is it possible that all those crypto influencers we know and hear stuffs about could face market manipulation charges under new regulation law that's coming? ...

Is there popular word ' Not a Financial Advice' not enough to safe them from what's coming?

Since they warned people about doing their own research too, isn't this enough to break them free?

NFA is never enough man. It's like saying not an insult and then passing a derogatory remark on anyone. This is how NFA works too. One cannot say he is not giving this as a financial advise and get away from his responsibility. Moreover this becomes even worse when people charge money from you for these tips and then say this is not financial advice. Honestly if it's not a financial advise then why are you charging any money for it. It's not only immoral but has to be illegal as well. But as long as someone is giving it for free on his social media it shouldn't be considered illegal.

[Findingnemo]

Is it possible that all those crypto influencers we know and hear stuffs about could face market manipulation charges under new regulation law that's coming? ...

Is there popular word ' Not a Financial Advice' not enough to safe them from what's coming?

Since they warned people about doing their own research too, isn't this enough to break them free?

It depends and if the person actually gain something financial or in any other form which later cause the people to lose money then they may face legal actions depends on the country and their policies. But the disclaimer isn't going to save them at all cause they are just using their fame in wrong way and can't save from facing consequences just with a safe statement.

[so98nn]

Depends on the matter of video or blog and what’s been actually stated in it.

For example, it would be straight up shilling if they are focusing everything on investing into specific project or let’s  say a token/coin and then it would be clear that project paid them to do so. If they add the affiliate links or something then it should be taken way seriously.

However, one fact is sure, there are thousands and thousands of channels and blogs which will keep posting about the blog or video and they couldn’t really have filtering criteria for the same.

[isaac_clarke22]

~

Yeah this is quite common to some platforms that allows monetization like Youtube especially for some small-mid sized channels since large sized channels would not want to risk losing their reputation.
Not sure if people would call that size of a Youtuber as influencer already, but if project owners are willing to pay those users for promotion, they would do it anyway for the sake of getting attention.

[Pmalek]

The following behaviour shall, inter alia, be considered as market manipulation:

taking advantage of occasional or regular access to the traditional or electronic media by voicing an opinion about a crypto-asset, while having previously taken positions on that crypto-asset, and profiting subsequently from the impact of the opinions voiced on the price of that crypto-asset, without having simultaneously disclosed that conflict of interest to the public in a proper and effective way.

It is attempted market manipulation. The obvious question would be, do the same rules apply to other financial markets? Let's say I am a big-time influencer heavily invested in Nvidia, and it's in my interest to see it's stock price increase. If I make a review video of my most recent Nvidia card and how great it is, which causes the price of the shares to increase by 5% overnight, and 10% in total over the course of a week, is that also attempted market manipulation? It should be, but I guess it depends on who does it.   

Maybe I will go to prison if I do it with Nvidia. But promoting Pfizer and how good their products are would make me a socially responsible hero in the eyes of many.

[GideonGono]

Depends on the matter of video or blog and what’s been actually stated in it.

For example, it would be straight up shilling if they are focusing everything on investing into specific project or let’s  say a token/coin and then it would be clear that project paid them to do so. If they add the affiliate links or something then it should be taken way seriously.

However, one fact is sure, there are thousands and thousands of channels and blogs which will keep posting about the blog or video and they couldn’t really have filtering criteria for the same.

Yes I also think that it is all about the content of their video if they focus on shilling or just information sharing.
I think most of us are well aware of it or already know the difference between those two so we could easily know it is really information sharing or just shilling in disguise of information sharing.

[suzanne5223]

Is it possible that all those crypto influencers we know and hear stuffs about could face market manipulation charges under new regulation law that's coming? ...

I don't think this should be a question anymore because some influencers have already been prosecuted for false hype and manipulation of a crypto project even when the manipulation regulation charges are not signed into law.

Is there popular word ' Not a Financial Advice' not enough to safe them from what's coming?

Since they warned people about doing their own research too, isn't this enough to break them free?

I think this is enough because they told their followers or readers to do their own research which is a general adage used in the crypto market that the investor's decision is independently made not based on their influencer's power.
I can see a lot of influencers using the quote  ' Not a Financial Advice'  ever since some of their colleagues are charged for artificially influencing an asset’s market behavior.

[uneng]

It's a sensible matter, because if regulators are too harsh on influencers and promoters they could be harming free speech. The danger is that people become afraid of voicing their predictions and opinions because if they are wrong about their guesses, they will have issues with authorities and even accused of being scammers.

At same time, the infamous phrase 'it is not financial advise' shouldn't be enough for an individual who promotes scam schemes through referral links to be safe from punishments.

The point is that some people engage in such activities for being naive, while others are engaged with bad purposes since the beginning. The difficult task here is to differentiate one from another.

[justdimin]

Is it possible that all those crypto influencers we know and hear stuffs about could face market manipulation charges under new regulation law that's coming? ...

Is there popular word ' Not a Financial Advice' not enough to safe them from what's coming?

Since they warned people about doing their own research too, isn't this enough to break them free?

I hope it doesn't. Getting paid by tokens and then promoting them using your follower base was always a horrible method. Kim Kardashian actually got fined for that, but not because of doing it, but because not sharing she got paid to do it. I believe that it should not be allowed to begin with let alone not saying you got paid only.

These people gets paid a ton of money, and then people who trust these people end up buying some shitcoin and lose all their money, the project creators who paid the influencers make their money back from the investors, in this math the only losers are the investors. This is why I do not think that it would be fair to let influencers and celebs keep promoting projects.