It started early this morning, the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65057809) gives me ‘Jack Dorsey business target of Hindenburg report’, so someone is finally asking questions of this person? With the byline “Tech billionaire Jack Dorsey is facing scrutiny, after a report accuses the payments company he leads of inflating user numbers and catering to criminals” one part some people noticed that about Twitter, which is why Elon Musk paid well over twice the price and no one in the media was willing to ask questions. I know nothing about the payment company, as such I have no view. The catering to criminals is new, not sure where I stand on it. As such when I see “Block, which former Twitter boss Mr Dorsey co-founded in 2009 and leads as chief executive, said it was exploring legal action against Hindenburg for the “factually inaccurate and misleading report”.” I stopped my response as I did not want to give more ammunition to Jack Dorsey, but the statement ‘factually inaccurate’ requires investigation and data. So as we are given “Now worth more than $30bn (£24.4bn), it was renamed Block in 2021, to reflect another, fast growing side of its business: Cash App, a payments app that was the focus of Hindenburg’s report.” No one seemingly reacts and that is fine, these places happen. Yet the setting is that it grew by well close to 1,000% over the period of less than 8 years. That implies a 125% year on year growth, that is a bit much and the accusation seemingly makes sense. And the criminals (or organised crime) would see the benefit of a cash app. There would be all kinds of benefits for them. This does not make Jack Dorsey guilty, but after the Twitter debacle it makes sense that a deeper look is given to this event. I reckon that I would be able to find a few more items if I had access to all that data, but that is the second stage. Not merely the data, the income streams would be invaluable for a player like China (or Russia for that matter). So as the BBC gives us “While conducting its research, Hindenburg claimed it had easily created obviously fake Cash App accounts in the names of Donald Trump and Elon Musk and made public records requests, which allegedly showed that Cash App was used to facilitate millions in fraudulent pandemic relief payments from the government.” Which leads to “that reflected “key lapses” in compliance processes” and there is one of the elements I warned for for well over two years. The BBC calls (or quotes) key lapses, but I see another fintech app lacking checks, balances and the ability to vet the correctness of information. And the added ““Former employees described how Cash App suppressed internal concerns and ignored user pleas for help as criminal activity and fraud ran rampant on its platform,” Hindenburg said. “This appeared to be an effort to grow Cash App’s user base by strategically disregarding Anti Money Laundering (AML) rules”” merely gives rise to my thoughts. And the world seems to be stagnant to act to any FinTech when needed. Yes, we see it at the BBC now, but how many more will look into this? How many media will give Jack Dorsey another free pass? I cannot tell at present, but over the last 11 hours the media did not go nuts over this, yet jokes like the ICIJ with their Pandora papers, their Pickwick papers and their cups of tea are seemingly in the dark on too much of this. So whilst some will wonder why Charles Dickens comes into play. Consider “A great hokey-cokey of eccentrics, conmen, phony politicians, amorous widows and wily, witty servants, somehow catching an essence of what it is to be English, celebrating companionship, generosity, good nature, in the figure of Samuel Pickwick, Esq, one of the great embodiments in literature of benevolence.” Now consider that view whilst I edit that part into “A view of FinTech solutions, conmen, phony media, and, silly exploiters, somehow catching an essence of what it is to be a wannabe, celebrating greed, need, and exploiters, in the figure of an unknown person at present, one of the worst instigations of hardship creators” it took less than a minute to get to that part of the equation and the crumbles of the media pie were all over the table for well over a year. So it is good to see the BBC make mention of this, but I wonder who will follow and will there be a real investigation? And I have to make one alteration, the Australian Financial Review got there about an hour ago, so they were on the ball. Yet who else was? Not that many for sure.
This situation is still fluidic and I will take more looks, because I think I owe people like Elon Musk to take a larger look into this person, merely for the reason that the media refused to do so and that ain’t right. So will Jack Dorsey join the flock containing people like Elisabeth Holmes and Sam Bankman-Fried? I do not know, that is for a court to decide, at present it is an accusation. But in this the BBC has for the most been a righteous party, so for now they are getting the benefit of the doubt and the fact that the AFR is supporting that view is not a bad thing either. Perhaps the twist and dance of Jack Dorsey is in its last stage Time will tell.