3 ms·

This paper has less credibility than the tokens they talk about. The definition of scam as they defined if "underperforming"

• mumblemumble 4y ago
  They defined it as a sudden and complete disappearance of the coin's liquidity. And they defend this as being indicative of a rug pull because it's pretty much definitional: a rug pull is when only one entity is propping up a coin's market in order to make it seem viable, and then suddenly disappears, taking all the liquidity with them. That liquidity is the very "rug" being pulled. They suggest that this doesn't look like an organic collapse because it happens all at once, in a coordinated manner. I don't have the expertise to evaluate that claim, but it at least seems plausible. What seems more problematic to me is that I'm not convinced that all of these events can be considered malicious. I would think that me just dicking around on the blockchain looks the same. Maybe I try making a coin, realize getting it off the ground is not going to be worth the effort or otherwise lose interest, and then abandon the project even before it really sells much. If so, then what percentage of these coins can be explained that way? Quite a large one, I'm guessing. Perhaps there's another argument to be made, though, that that is not a good defense of the health/safety of the market for general consumers. Lots of coins that nobody should be touching because they aren't serious perhaps doesn't look much different from lots of legitimate scams from a consumer perspective. Either way, the story for consumers is a rather rigid formulation of "caveat emptor".