Going Too Far

Here is my position, plainly: I am deeply concerned about the narrowing intersection of social media, gambling mechanics, and speculation masquerading as investing. Broker/Dealers who are implementing social plans where users post trades, performance, and can mimic the moves of public figures, will invite exactly the kind of herding, short-term scorekeeping, and performance-chasing that destroys true wealth. I and other experienced advisors are already warning that a leaderboard-style feed risks becoming “the blind leading the blind,” particularly if outcomes are sorted by recent returns rather than process and risk control.

Let’s talk facts about one company. In January 2025, two Robinhood broker-dealers agreed to pay $45 million to settle SEC charges covering more than ten securities-law violations, including recordkeeping and reporting failures. In March, FINRA announced a nearly $30 million settlement addressing supervisory and anti-money laundering lapses, misleading communications, and restitution tied to “collaring” order practices. These are not trivial foot faults; they are core-controls failures inside a platform now proposing to host social trading at scale.

Now add the “gamification” overlay—prediction-market wagering and sports-event contracts, and you have a combustible mix. State regulators have already opened inquiries into event-betting features tied to popular sporting tournaments. Even if such products are legally packaged, the behavioral signal to inexperienced users is unmistakable: treat markets like parlays. That is a terrible frame for retirement capital.

This is not theoretical. We have just lived through a multi-year wave of “finfluencer” promotion blowups and enforcement actions. Kim Kardashian paid $1.26 million to settle SEC charges for touting a crypto asset without proper disclosure. Floyd Mayweather Jr. and DJ Khaled settled earlier SEC cases for failing to disclose compensation for ICO promotions. The SEC also charged multiple celebrities in 2023 in connection with unlawful crypto touting tied to Justin Sun’s companies. The lesson is the same: influence is not diligence, and virality is not due care.

The harm extends beyond celebrity posts. In June 2025, the Department of Justice detailed how a social-media finance influencer, Tyler Bossetti, ran a multi-year real-estate Ponzi scheme that took in more than $23 million, leaving investors with over $11 million in losses. Social proof, sizzle reels, and “community” optics are not a substitute for audited financials, third-party custodians, and independent verification.

Transparency is better than anonymity; but without robust guardrails, it can still elevate the worst behaviors—chasing recent winners, confusing luck with skill, and copying strategies you do not understand. There’s a reason why there’s the industry’s oldest disclaimer: past performance does not guarantee future results. Publishing a scoreboard does not teach risk management.

Here is the principle I would apply for clients and readers: separate entertainment from investing, and speculation from planning. If a platform wants to host social discussion, require time-weighted, period-standardized performance; display drawdowns and volatility next to returns; show after-tax, after-cost outcomes; highlight survivorship bias; and surface diversification metrics. Most importantly, embed fiduciary content from licensed professionals, with real compliance accountability—not ad-hoc hot takes from unvetted accounts.

I am not against technology. I am against architectures that nudge novices toward gambling with their future. The safest stance for serious investors is simple: mute the leaderboards, tune out the hype, and stick to a process that has survived many cycles—and many, many social fads.