3 ms·
> The terms scam and malicious token are not being used identically by all researchers. For example, papers such as [44] use the terms scam and under-performing
by Kiro 4y ago
> The terms scam and malicious token are not being used identically by all researchers. For example, papers such as
[44] use the terms scam and under-performing token indistinguishably, leading to inaccurate results and classifications.
In the current paper, we define a malicious token as one released by a developer or a group of developers with no
intrinsic value or use case.
I guess the test token I put on Uniswap is a scam then.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y agoWho decides what the use case is? Pokemon cards technically have a use case. So do crypto kitties and smooth love potion - even if it's somehow slightly "dumber".
- PaulHoule 4y agoThe real purpose is the expectation you'll sell them to a greater fool.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y agoI still don't see how this doesn't apply to Pokemon cards.
- GaylordTuring 4y agoThat’s a really strange definition of “scam”. I would simply define a scam as something where you’re promised to receive something (a certain token, a token that is backed up by something, a promise of future work, et cetera), and then don’t receive it (either now or in the future). If I simply create a meme token and sell it to someone who speculates that it will increase in value, I don’t see how that can be considered a scam.