The founder of the lending firm MyConstant, Huynh Tran Quang Duy, agreed to pay over $10 million to settle claims from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC accused him of misusing investor funds to purchase TerraUSD (UST), a stablecoin that later collapsed. According to the SEC, Huynh used approximately $11.9 million from his customers for this purpose while promising them returns through a loan matching service backed by cryptocurrency.

MyConstant, which started in 2018, raised more than $20 million from over 4,000 investors by advertising low-risk investments with returns between 6% and 10%. However, when TerraUSD's value plummeted in May 2022, MyConstant lost nearly $8 million on its investment. The SEC stated that Huynh also misappropriated around $415,000 for personal use.

As part of the settlement, he will pay back more than $8.3 million along with an additional $1.5 million in prejudgment interest to affected customers and a civil penalty of $750,000 within two weeks. Although he settled the claims without admitting or denying them, this case highlights significant regulatory scrutiny faced by crypto-related businesses following the collapse of TerraUSD and other companies in the sector.

MyConstant ceased operations in November 2022 due to these challenges and has since returned some funds to investors while placing its assets into a creditor trust.

Original article

Here is my analysis of the article's value to a normal reader:

Actionable Information: The article does not provide any immediate steps or actions for readers to take. It informs about a legal settlement and the consequences for the company and its founder but offers no direct guidance or tools for readers to utilize.

Educational Depth: It teaches about the regulatory scrutiny faced by crypto-related businesses and the potential risks involved in such investments. The article provides a historical context by referencing the collapse of TerraUSD and its impact on MyConstant. However, it could have delved deeper into the regulatory landscape and the specific laws or guidelines that were violated, which would have added more educational value.

Personal Relevance: The topic is relevant to anyone interested in investing, particularly in the cryptocurrency market. It highlights the potential risks and consequences of investing in this sector and the importance of understanding the regulatory environment. The article's focus on investor protection and the misuse of funds is a critical aspect that affects individuals' financial decisions and security.

Public Service Function: While the article does not provide official warnings or emergency contacts, it serves a public service by bringing attention to a high-profile case involving investor funds and regulatory action. It informs the public about the potential pitfalls in the crypto industry and the need for caution and awareness.

Practicality of Advice: As the article primarily discusses a legal settlement and its aftermath, it does not offer practical advice or tips. However, it indirectly advises readers to be cautious and informed when investing, especially in high-risk sectors like cryptocurrency.

Long-Term Impact: The article's focus on regulatory scrutiny and investor protection has a long-term impact on the crypto industry. It highlights the need for better oversight and transparency, which could lead to improved practices and increased investor confidence in the long run.

Emotional/Psychological Impact: The article may evoke emotions such as concern or caution in readers, especially those with investments or an interest in the crypto market. It emphasizes the potential risks and the need for vigilance, which could motivate readers to educate themselves further and make more informed decisions.

Clickbait/Ad-driven Words: The language used in the article is relatively neutral and does not employ sensational or fear-mongering tactics. It presents the information in a straightforward manner, focusing on the facts and the legal proceedings.

Missed Opportunities: The article could have provided more value by including resources or links to trusted sources where readers can learn about regulatory frameworks, investment risks, and best practices in the crypto space. It could also have offered a more detailed analysis of the settlement terms and their implications, which would have been beneficial for readers interested in the legal aspects.

In summary, while the article informs readers about a significant case involving a crypto lending firm, it lacks actionable steps and in-depth educational content. It provides a valuable public service by raising awareness about investor protection and regulatory scrutiny but could have offered more practical guidance and resources for readers to navigate the complex world of cryptocurrency investments.

The actions described in the text reveal a profound betrayal of trust and responsibility within kinship bonds, endangering the survival and well-being of families and communities.

Huynh Tran Quang Duy, through his lending firm MyConstant, promised investors low-risk returns, exploiting their trust and the promise of financial security. By misusing investor funds to purchase a volatile stablecoin, he not only jeopardized the financial stability of his customers but also undermined the very foundation of family duty and community trust. The loss of nearly $8 million in investment, coupled with the misappropriation of funds for personal gain, demonstrates a profound disregard for the welfare of others and a violation of the sacred duty to protect and provide for kin.

The consequences of this breach of trust are far-reaching. The collapse of MyConstant and the loss of investor funds not only impact the financial security of families but also erode the social fabric of communities. It weakens the ability of families to provide for their children, care for their elders, and maintain the stability and continuity of the clan. The loss of trust in financial institutions and the crypto sector, following the collapse of TerraUSD and other companies, further exacerbates this crisis, making it increasingly difficult for families to access the resources they need to survive and thrive.

The impact on procreative continuity and the stewardship of the land is also significant. When families are financially insecure, they may be less able or willing to take on the responsibilities of raising children, thus diminishing birth rates below replacement levels. This has long-term consequences for the survival of the people and the ability to care for and preserve the land.

Furthermore, the forced economic dependencies created by such schemes fracture family cohesion and shift responsibilities onto distant and impersonal authorities. This undermines the natural duties of parents and extended kin, weakening the very foundations of community trust and kinship bonds.

To restore trust and duty, personal accountability is key. Huynh must make full restitution to his investors, apologizing for his actions and demonstrating a renewed commitment to clan duties. This includes not only repaying the financial losses but also taking steps to rebuild the social and community trust that has been broken.

If such behaviors and ideas spread unchecked, the consequences for families, communities, and the land are dire. Financial insecurity and the erosion of trust will lead to increased social fragmentation, diminished birth rates, and a weakened ability to care for the vulnerable. The land, a sacred trust passed down through generations, will be neglected, and the survival of the people will be threatened. It is only through the restoration of local responsibility, the protection of modesty and boundaries, and the renewal of ancestral duties that communities can thrive and ensure their continuity.

"The SEC accused him of misusing investor funds to purchase TerraUSD (UST), a stablecoin that later collapsed."

This sentence uses passive voice to describe the action of misusing funds. It hides who is responsible, as it does not explicitly state that Huynh Tran Quang Duy is the one accused of misusing the money. The passive construction downplays the severity of the accusation and shifts focus away from Duy's actions. By using this structure, the sentence creates a sense of distance and potentially reduces the impact of the allegation.

"MyConstant, which started in 2018, raised more than $20 million from over 4,000 investors by advertising low-risk investments with returns between 6% and 10%."

Here, the use of the word "advertising" suggests a one-sided view of the company's actions. It implies that MyConstant was solely focused on promoting its services without considering the potential risks involved. This language may create a bias towards seeing the company as solely responsible for attracting investors, ignoring the role of individual investor decisions and the overall market conditions.

"The SEC stated that Huynh also misappropriated around $415,000 for personal use."

The phrase "also misappropriated" suggests that this action is an additional, less significant offense compared to the previous accusations. It downplays the severity of misappropriating funds for personal gain, which is a serious financial crime. This wording may create a bias by minimizing the impact of this specific allegation, potentially leading readers to view it as a lesser offense.

"As part of the settlement, he will pay back more than $8.3 million along with an additional $1.5 million in prejudgment interest to affected customers and a civil penalty of $750,000 within two weeks."

The sentence structure emphasizes the repayment amount, which could create a bias by making it seem like the primary focus of the settlement. It does not explicitly mention the civil penalty, which is a significant consequence. By highlighting the repayment, the sentence may lead readers to believe that the financial aspect is the most important outcome, potentially overshadowing the legal and regulatory implications.

"MyConstant ceased operations in November 2022 due to these challenges and has since returned some funds to investors while placing its assets into a creditor trust."

The phrase "due to these challenges" implies that the company's closure was solely a result of external factors, such as the collapse of TerraUSD. It does not acknowledge any potential internal issues or mismanagement that may have contributed to the company's downfall. This wording creates a bias by presenting the company as a victim of circumstances, potentially absolving it of any responsibility for its own financial troubles.

The text primarily conveys a sense of disappointment and concern. Disappointment is evident in the description of the SEC's accusations against Huynh Tran Quang Duy, the founder of MyConstant. The SEC's claim that he misused investor funds to purchase a stablecoin that later collapsed suggests a breach of trust and a failure to deliver on promised returns. This disappointment is further emphasized by the mention of MyConstant's advertising of low-risk investments with attractive returns, which did not materialize due to the TerraUSD collapse.

Concern arises from the potential impact of this incident on investors and the broader crypto industry. The loss of nearly $8 million by MyConstant and the misappropriation of funds for personal use by Huynh raise questions about the safety and security of investments in this sector. The regulatory scrutiny faced by crypto-related businesses following the TerraUSD collapse highlights the potential risks and challenges associated with these investments, which may cause worry among readers.

The emotions in the text are used to guide the reader's reaction by creating a sense of caution and skepticism towards crypto-related investments. By highlighting the specific actions and consequences of Huynh's alleged misconduct, the text aims to make readers more aware of the potential pitfalls and risks involved in such ventures. The mention of regulatory scrutiny and the collapse of TerraUSD serves as a warning, encouraging readers to approach these types of investments with a critical eye and a healthy dose of skepticism.

To persuade readers, the writer employs several rhetorical devices. One notable technique is the use of specific, detailed language to describe the actions and consequences of Huynh's alleged behavior. Phrases like "misused investor funds," "promising them returns," and "misappropriated around $415,000 for personal use" paint a clear picture of potential wrongdoing and breach of trust. This level of detail helps to create a sense of emotional connection and engagement with the story, making it more impactful and memorable.

Additionally, the writer employs a narrative structure, telling a story of events that unfolded over time. This storytelling approach, combined with the use of specific, emotional language, helps to create a sense of drama and urgency. By presenting the events in a chronological manner, the writer builds tension and keeps the reader engaged, making them more receptive to the message being conveyed. The text also includes a personal element, referring to the founder by name and providing details about the company's history and operations, which can help to humanize the story and make it more relatable.