Crypto Documentary Shifts Perceptions and Highlights Influence Tactics

Anat Mati, faculty director of the Corporation and Society Initiative (CASI), introduced an event featuring a screening of Ben McKenzie's documentary, "Everyone Is Lying to You For Money." The event aimed to discuss issues related to crypto and, more broadly, the influence industry.

Event Structure and Participants

The event included: - An introduction by Anat Mati. - A review of pre-movie poll results. - A special introduction to the movie by Ben McKenzie. - The movie screening. - A post-movie discussion with additional poll questions, led by Anat Mati and her colleague Doug Guilbeault. - Contributions from student leaders Dylan and Sam, who are integral to CASI's operations.

About the Corporation and Society Initiative (CASI)

CASI is a collaborative effort involving students, staff, and faculty. Its origins trace back to 2017 when MBA students expressed a desire to discuss critical issues such as: - Decision-making in the private sector and government. - Accountability for decisions. - How society creates accountability. - Governance issues at the heart of the economy.

Since its inception, CASI has fostered these conversations through events and collaborations with MBA leaders. The current team includes two lead student leaders, Danny and Eric, along with other student moderators, and two staff members, Lisa Simpson (Director) and Tina Mordragon (Project Manager).

Ben McKenzie's Documentary: "Everyone Is Lying to You For Money"

Ben McKenzie, known for his acting roles, delved into the world of crypto during COVID-19, leading him to create this documentary. Mati resonated with McKenzie's experience, drawing parallels to her own "rabbit hole" investigation into banking and politics after the financial crisis, where she encountered what she described as "nonsense" and a disregard for truth. This experience led her to explore broader questions of trust, belief formation, and the phenomenon of "lying to you for money," a topic she now discusses with experts like sociologists and communication specialists.

McKenzie's film uses crypto as a case study to explore these themes. He emphasized the importance for students and community members to understand the nature of lies, particularly those told for financial gain. While acknowledging that actors "lie for money" in a transparent way, he distinguished this from the deceptive practices of fraudsters. He urged future professionals to maintain integrity and skepticism, especially when financial incentives might lead others to exaggerate or fabricate information.

Pre-Movie Poll Results

Before the screening, attendees participated in a poll to gauge their initial perceptions of crypto.

Question 1: Crypto Ownership

• Approximately half of the attendees had never owned crypto.
• Some were considering it.
• Others engaged with crypto only through intermediaries like ETFs.

Question 2: Beliefs About Crypto

• Half of the respondents believed crypto was "mostly scams and a tool for crime" (e.g., money laundering).
• 8% viewed it as a "transformative technology."
• This question was designed to be revisited after the movie to observe any shifts in opinion.

Question 3: Political Influence of the Crypto Sector

• Attendees largely believed the crypto sector has a "significant impact relative to other industries" through lobbying and campaign contributions.
• An example cited was Senator Sherrod Brown, who was reportedly voted out in 2024 largely due to crypto lobbying and campaign contributions.

Post-Movie Poll Results and Discussion

After the movie, the polls were reopened, and the results showed a significant shift in audience perception.

Question 2 Revisited: Beliefs About Crypto

• The percentage of attendees who believed crypto was "mostly scams and a tool for crime" increased to two-thirds.
• The percentage viewing it as "innovative" remained around 8-9%.
• This indicated that the documentary was effective in shaping opinions, with more people forming a definitive stance.

Question 4: The Problem of "Lying for Money"

• The majority emphasized the "hype-driven markets" aspect as the best description of the problem.
• Doug Guilbeault, a sociologist and communication expert, noted that this issue extends beyond crypto to areas like AI. He explained that people are often influenced by factors they are unaware of, especially in times of uncertainty. Confident, loud voices can exploit this by offering seemingly clear answers, even if the underlying ideas are readily exploited for personal gain.

Question 5: Motivations of Crypto Promoters

• The results were tied between two options: promoters "are not sure, but they're being paid to tell you that it's great" and "they kind of know, maybe deep down... that they're lying."
• Mati related this to her book, "The Banker's New Clothes," and the concept of "willful blindness" or "motivated reasoning," where people believe what they want to believe, especially when their livelihood depends on it.

Question 6: Celebrity Endorsements

• A significant portion of respondents confidently stated they would "never" buy a product promoted by a celebrity.
• Guilbeault cautioned that behavioral science often shows people are influenced more than they realize. He discussed how "hijacking" occurs, even among intelligent individuals, who might be drawn to "aha moments" or idealized ideas. He highlighted that celebrities are often paid millions to promote products, and this financial incentive is not always disclosed.
• He also noted the evolving nature of influence strategies, with the industry now increasingly paying non-famous individuals with smaller social media followings to create a perception of authenticity.
• Mati questioned the credibility of celebrities like Steph Curry or Larry David for financial advice, emphasizing that the influence extends beyond admiration for their primary skills.

Question 7: Restrictions on Financial Product Promotion

• The discussion centered on whether financial products should have more restrictions on promotion compared to other consumer goods (e.g., shoes, cereal).
• The consensus leaned towards greater restrictions for financial products due to the potentially significant financial losses involved, as opposed to the limited risk of disliking a consumer product.
• Guilbeault added that influencers also hijack the emotional aspect of trust, which is deeply rooted in human evolution.
• Mati brought up the example of "prediction markets" like Kalshi, which are currently debated as either legitimate financial contracts requiring regulation or simply gambling.

Question 8: Influence of Others' Behavior

• This question explored the concept of "social contagion" and "herding effects."
• Guilbeault explained that people are hardwired to pay attention to the behaviors of their local network, often changing their own behaviors to fit in or get along, even without conscious awareness.
• He noted that while individuals may rationalize their actions with stories about "freedom" or other ideals, studies often show their adoption of ideas was primarily driven by the influence of others, not by evidence or breakthrough realizations. He contrasted this with the idea of "collective intelligence," arguing that many systems claiming to foster it are actually highly susceptible to herding.

Question 9: Taking a Leadership Job in a "Gray Area"

• The final question asked about taking a leadership job in a legally or ethically "gray area," such as regulatory arbitrage (e.g., claiming "we're not a bank" or "this is not a security").
• Most respondents indicated they would not take such a job if they were unsure of the legal gray areas, emphasizing the importance of strong legal counsel.