Why Is The Bitmex Rate Change Not A Rug Pull?
The Ethical Dilemma of Tying A Rate Structure to A Utility Token
This is an update to my article The BMEX Rug Pill published here on Medium and here on X (formerly Twitter).
Neither Arthur Hayes or BitMEX or BitMEX Research have addressed the issue. However, BitMEX support addressed the issue while also escalating the problem.
Presently, BitMEX support defines a rug pull as something “done by malicious actors who lie to users about what they are offering, and they usually don’t offer anything and just disappear without a trace.”
But a rug pull neither needs to be intentionally malicious, nor must the offerer of the rug pull need to disappear.
As I outlined The Bitmex Rug Pull, I am not saying Bitmex is acting maliciously or that they are about to fail and disappear.
Quiet the opposite.
It is because I believe in a free market and that free speech and a free press act as sufficient decentralized regulation to correct the marketplace and because I have a deep respect for the founders of Bitmex for their accomplishments that I bring this matter up for public discussion and set an example of how market self-regulation and operate can work in opposition to the Micahel Saylor model of Crony Capitalism.
The essence of the issue is that once a fee structure is tied to a utility token, then that structure must be honored.
My argument is simple. Those who have purchased and staked BIMEX tokens since January 4, 2023, have no reason to expect a fee change allowed in the Terms of Service should adversely affect them.
This does not mean Bitmex cannot change its fee structure. It simply means that such a fee structure change should be for new clients only purchasing and staking BMEX tokens.
Further, once a fee structure is tied to a token, the allowance of private negotiations for a fee structure apart from the utility token, yields such a utility token worthless for its purported utilitarian purpose.
UGLY OLD GOAT
