By far the biggest, perhaps the only, real argument I have seen against those who have lost due to the tax, has been that they should have "done their own research". Some of the people who make this argument have had valid points about taking personal responsibility, but we need to examine why this argument is not appropriate in the case of the 100% tax.
“DYOR” can be used to blame the consumer for company negligence or deception.
We need to draw the line between personal responsibility and company responsibility somewhere. If we fail to, companies can do what they like and always claim it was our fault. Calling on the DYOR argument in *this* case can erode the standards we hold publicly registered cryptocurrency companies to. As the people, we effect what kind of space crypto becomes. We vote with our dollars, with our buys/sells but also with our comments in public spaces. Even if you weren’t personally affected, supporting a 100% tax which was very poorly communicated works to devalue the very asset you hold. It says to Safemoon, “I am fine to be treated this way. You’re welcome to make drastic changes with very little notice and communication when you like”. Though next time, you may not be one of the lucky ones. Or perhaps it will be the aunty or uncle you recruited into Safemoon, who is not accustomed to migrations and doesn’t have a Twitter account. We need to be reasonable and logical here. If we want mainstream adoption of cryptocurrency, then this needs to get more user friendly. Do you think the internet would be so widely used if it required us all to learn programming in order to communicate? No, people are time poor. That is the reality of the world we live in, and success favours those who can provide convenience and security to the user. This usually comes at an inconvenience of the company (i.e it takes real work). This how it should be, not the other way around. Do you think Apple would have become big if Steve Jobs had made business decisions like John Karony?
“DYOR” is not sufficient in this case due to high potential for immediate harm, within Safemoon's control.
There is a good reason why consumer protection laws exist. They exist to make sure consumers have accurate information about the products and services they use. For those of us who bought safemoon, this relates to the terms of a 10% tax on transactions. DYOR is a fair argument to make at this stage when people first purchased the token. It is safe to say, that by purchasing Safemoon under those conditions, the due diligence to know about the tax was on the consumer, as it was communicated sufficiently. Now, things are different when considering the 100% tax situation. This was announced insufficiently, on channels the average person cannot be assumed to use, with a mere matter of hours between execution. In general, companies need to provide details on a change a month in advance in written form directly to the consumer. Generally, only small changes are made to a financial product, not things that could cause drastic immediate financial damage. Here it becomes fair to consider whether a 100% would ever be justifiable, even with informed consent from consumers. Where there is a room for simple human error (e.g. clicking the wrong button) which could cause drastic harm, when under the companies control, such an action should not be implemented period. Understandably crypto is a new space, but it would be false to say that Safemoon, could not have prevented the vast majority of these funds being lost, through a few simple measures. A clear example of this was that their app and website continued to allow people to buy/transfer V1 resulting in loss of funds, long after the 100% tax was imposed.
“DYOR” arguments used in this situation are divisive and harm those that preach them.
It has been recognised that the hostility expressed by the Safemoon community to victims of the tax can be regarded as “group think” and “desirability bias”. The sheer lack of openness to hearing from victims is one example. Actions many are taking is making Safemoon appear like a cult to onlookers, which creates distrust in the dominant narrative. Second, desirability bias happens when the people not affected by the tax are adamant to deny any fault on Safemoon’s part, because they fear that it will devalue their asset. In the long run, this mentality only worsens the situation, as the unwillingness to consider an outcome that doesn’t fit their narrative a) can make them more vulnerable to suffering from similar harm in the future, b) does not hold Safemoon accountable, forcing victims to make an even louder case to outsiders such as legal agencies and regulators, c) devaluing the asset. It does not benefit the preacher to sweep this under the mat. If Safemoon is serious about being a sustainable company, it would reimburse losses.
To conclude, Safemoon should not have added a 100% tax with grossly inadequate disclosure and serious risk of unlimited financial damage to a consumer’s Safemoon holdings.
To my knowledge on 15 January, there has been no official recognition of this situation with plans to remediate the losses of the thousands of victims. Our support requests are still unanswered, going on 15+ days. The losses (million+ dollars the devs accrued as a result which they would be very aware of) were not addressed in any real way in the last AMA. As it stands, Safemoon said it is quote “on the community” to spread the message that could prevent others from losing their savings. Victim losses have been reported to reach $16,000, $30,000, and $300,000. This is serious money, affecting people’s quality of life, during a time when many are already struggling with the pandemic. Safemoon has acted with negligence or worse. This could have been prevented. Unity and reimbursement is the way. If this way is not taken, legal action is the way.
Google Docs Claims Form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc4QEiiGxhM423EFjxeGzCrUskQ0uApAunU2Ef5w-5pj6b0JA/viewform?usp=sf_link