Ah yes, here’s a good topic, NFT promotion. And even better, we have crypto.com that is notorious for their bold and controversial marketing approach. Yes, fortune does favor the brave, and god knows how buying a JPEG is brave. Following all the backlash for misleading marketing, it’s actually time regulate some companies and in terms of how they promote their product. Sadly, their product depends on NFTs and cryptocurrencies which is out of their control. With that, it is only natural to sugarcoat everything including NFTs and crypto.com is all about that. And now, they finally have to answer to authorities for their ads.

Curb Your NFT Promotion

Hallelujah! The United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has flagged crypto.com ads for NFT promotion. According to ASA, the exchange’s portrayal of NFTs is misleading and fails to identify the associated risks with the asset class.

Specifically, crypto.com had a series of ads on Facebook promoting the NFT project Turtle United. The promotion took place in July 2022 and ASA has charged it on three major grounds. To begin with, it did not “illustrate the risk of NFT investment” which is a fair statement. Furthermore, they also did not disclose minting and gave unverifiable assurance to investors.

Expectedly, crypto.com made no attempt to disclose that NFTs can actually go down in value. On top of that, NFTs are unregulated asset, meaning that the investors may dip their toes into a more sketchy investment. In such case, the platform must include the associated risks with the audience. Therefore, the ad was misleading according to ASA.

But What About the Turtles?

But, this is not the first time these two dance together! Back in January, ASA flagged two ads from crypto.com for being misleading. Apparently, the exchange published them on Daily Mail app with implying that investors could earn up to 8.5% per annum by investing in Bitcoin with credit card. Following that, the exchange had to take down the ads.

In case of the turtle NFTs, crypto.com made a statement saying that they believe it did not violate any rules. Their argument is that since NFTs are not mentioned in Treasury’s reports on digital assets, they are not classified as financial products. On the other hand, ASA countered their argument by pointing out the description of digital collectibles as “offering a lot of value”. Hence, the negligence to include the minting fee of 0.2 ETH which is approximately $302.

Unlike previous cases, ASA did not fine crypto.com. However, they cannot run the ad without making the aforementioned changes to their NFT promotion.

As regulations are crawling in to put a leash on digital assets, we can expect advertising watchdogs to challenge the current marketing style of crypto platforms. And libertarianism be damned, it may be a good thing for crypto in the long run.