Gresham’s Law – How Bad Forces Out Good

Gresham’s Law – How Bad Forces Out Good – Bad Advocates Can Profoundly Impact Good Advocates and Victims

Introduction

Gresham’s Law is an economic principle that explains how inferior currency tends to circulate more widely than currency of higher value when both are accepted as legal tender at the same face value. Named after Sir Thomas Gresham, a financial advisor to Queen Elizabeth I, the law originated during the 16th century but continues to hold relevance in modern discussions of money, economics, and even cultural trends. The basic idea is simple: when two forms of money coexist, and one is perceived to be of better quality or greater intrinsic value, people will hoard the better money and spend the lower-quality one. Over time, the better money disappears from active use. Although originally applied to metal coins, such as gold and silver currency, the principle has since been used to describe broader social and economic situations, including areas like digital content, public discourse, and organizational culture. Gresham’s Law offers a powerful lens to understand how quality can be pushed aside by quantity or convenience.

About Crime Victim Advocates

Gresham’s Law, when applied metaphorically to crime victim advocacy, offers a useful framework for understanding how unqualified or unethical individuals can dominate the space and undermine legitimate support efforts. In the context of scam victim support, this effect becomes especially visible. Bad advocates often attract attention by offering quick fixes, emotional appeals, or oversimplified advice that promises fast recovery or instant justice. These messages spread quickly on social media and public forums, reaching victims who are desperate for support. In contrast, good advocates—those who use trauma-informed practices, follow ethical standards, and offer structured recovery tools—may struggle to gain visibility. Their guidance often requires more time, emotional effort, and personal accountability, which can seem less appealing to someone in crisis.

When bad advocacy becomes more visible or louder than good advocacy, victims may have difficulty distinguishing helpful resources from harmful ones. As a result, they may fall deeper into confusion, shame, or financial exploitation. Good advocates, facing constant misinformation and damaged trust, may burn out or withdraw, leaving the field even more exposed to opportunists. Without mechanisms that recognize and support ethical advocacy, the quality of help available to crime victims diminishes. This pattern reflects Gresham’s Law in action, where the worst examples push the best ones out.

The Gresham’s Law Core Analogy

In the same way that bad money can displace good money in circulation, unethical, untrained, or exploitative advocates can push ethical, qualified, and survivor-focused advocates to the margins.

How This Happens:

Misinformation Gains Traction

Unqualified advocates often spread simplistic, sensationalized, or false narratives (e.g., “just block the scammer and move on”), which are emotionally satisfying and easy to digest. Their content gains attention quickly, especially on social media, even if it’s factually wrong or emotionally harmful.

Impact: Legitimate advocates who prioritize nuance, trauma-informed care, and evidence-based strategies are drowned out. Victims gravitate toward whoever is louder or more emotionally validating in the moment, even if it leads them further from recovery.

Exploitative Behavior Appears Helpful

Some bad actors position themselves as “experts” or “mentors” to scam victims while selling books, services, or coaching packages with little to no professional credibility. They may even exploit survivors’ trauma to build personal brands.

Impact: This crowds the space and undermines trust. Survivors, confused by the noise, may dismiss all advocates, including the ethical ones, as self-serving.

Oversimplification Appeals More Than Complexity

Good advocacy requires uncomfortable truths: that recovery is slow, that scams can happen to anyone, and that emotional work is essential. Bad advocacy often skips this and delivers certainty, blame, or savior narratives.

Impact: Victims prefer fast answers and reassurance, and in choosing these, they unintentionally elevate unhelpful voices while disengaging from those offering sustainable, long-term help.

Institutional Legitimacy Is Undermined

When bad advocacy dominates the public narrative, institutions and stakeholders (media, funders, policymakers) may fail to distinguish between credible and non-credible groups. The entire field appears unserious or fragmented.

Impact: The legitimacy of professional advocates erodes, and good actors may be excluded from conversations that shape laws, funding, or public understanding.

Real Consequences of Bad Driving Out Good

• Victims are retraumatized by poor guidance or are blamed for their trauma.

• Peer support groups become toxic, dominated by shaming, misinformation, or savior complexes.

• Good advocates burn out or withdraw due to harassment, lack of support, or constant damage control.

• Public perception of scam victims worsens, as advocacy looks unprofessional or exploitative.

• Long-term recovery is sabotaged, as survivors are not given proper tools, time, or guidance.

The real consequences of bad advocates driving out good ones can be severe and far-reaching. When victims receive poor guidance, they are often retraumatized. Instead of healing, they may experience deeper confusion, blame, or isolation. Some are told their trauma is their fault, while others are pushed to move on before they are emotionally ready. These harmful responses compound the original damage caused by the scam.

In peer support environments, the influence of bad advocates can quickly turn groups toxic. Misinformation spreads unchecked, members shame one another for their reactions, and unqualified leaders present themselves as heroes. These groups lose their safety and purpose, causing genuine victims to disengage or suffer in silence.

At the same time, qualified and ethical advocates face increasing hostility. They spend valuable time correcting false claims, countering unethical behavior, or defending their credibility. This constant tension leads many to burn out or leave entirely, creating a vacuum that bad actors fill even more easily.

Public perception also suffers. When the loudest voices appear disorganized, aggressive, or profit-driven, the legitimacy of the entire advocacy community declines. Scam victims are then viewed with more suspicion, and the stigma surrounding victimization grows.

Without clear, consistent guidance rooted in ethics and expertise, victims lack the tools and time they need for lasting recovery. Shortcuts and false hope replace meaningful support, leaving survivors unprepared to rebuild. The long-term damage affects not just individuals but the entire ecosystem of scam victim advocacy.

Preventing the Displacement

To reverse this effect, systems must incentivize good advocacy:

• Promote training, certification, and trauma-informed education.

• Call out misinformation clearly and consistently.

• Build coalitions that create collective credibility.

• Educate victims on how to evaluate advocacy groups and individuals.

• Push platforms to enforce standards for self-proclaimed experts.

Preventing the displacement of good advocacy requires a structured and intentional response. It is not enough to hope that quality will rise on its own. Systems must actively support ethical advocates and protect victims from harmful influences. One essential step is to promote training, certification, and trauma-informed education for those working with scam victims. This ensures that advocates understand the psychological impact of fraud and know how to respond with care, accuracy, and professionalism.

Misinformation must be addressed directly. Advocacy groups, platforms, and professionals should call out false claims and misleading guidance in a clear and consistent manner. Silence allows harmful narratives to take root. At the same time, coalitions should be formed to build collective credibility. When qualified advocates work together, they strengthen the field and present a unified voice that is harder to dismiss.

Victims also need tools to make informed choices. They should be educated on how to evaluate advocacy groups, recognize red flags, and understand what ethical support looks like. This knowledge helps them avoid exploitation and connect with the right resources.

Finally, digital platforms must take responsibility. Self-proclaimed experts and unverified voices should not be allowed to dominate public discourse unchecked. Platforms need to enforce content standards that prioritize verified, ethical information. These combined efforts create an environment where quality advocacy is supported, recognized, and able to thrive.

Conclusion

The displacement of good advocacy by unqualified or unethical actors creates serious risks for both victims and the broader field of crime victim support. This problem becomes especially visible in scam victim recovery, where misinformation, emotional manipulation, and self-promotion often receive more attention than ethical, trauma-informed guidance. Gresham’s Law helps explain this pattern. When low-quality advocacy spreads unchecked, it begins to crowd out high-quality efforts. The result is an environment where victims struggle to find trustworthy help, and credible advocates are pushed to the margins.

Victims who fall under the influence of bad advocacy are often retraumatized. They may receive advice that minimizes their experience, encourages secrecy, or promotes blame rather than healing. Some are told to ignore their pain or accept harmful behavior. Others are drawn into financial schemes, false hope, or dependency on untrained individuals who present themselves as experts. These outcomes leave victims more confused, isolated, and emotionally damaged than they were before seeking help.

Ethical advocates face a different but related harm. They spend their time responding to misinformation, repairing broken trust, and trying to protect victims from further damage. This constant burden leads to burnout, withdrawal, and reduced visibility. When good advocates leave the space or scale back their efforts, victims have fewer safe places to turn. The loss is not just personal. It reduces the overall capacity of the advocacy field to provide competent and compassionate support.

The impact also reaches the public level. When the most prominent voices appear disorganized or self-interested, public perception of scam victim advocacy declines. Institutions, funders, and policymakers may begin to doubt the legitimacy of the work. They may withhold resources or disengage from efforts to improve support systems. This creates a feedback loop where unethical voices grow stronger and ethical advocates face greater obstacles.

Reversing this trend requires consistent and deliberate effort. Leaders in the advocacy field must promote ethical standards, invest in professional development, and work together to reinforce trust. Educational tools should help victims identify qualified support. Digital platforms must monitor and regulate harmful content more effectively. Without these safeguards, the advocacy space will remain unstable, and victims will continue to face harm. Protecting good advocacy is essential for the recovery of individual victims and for the credibility of the entire support community.