5 ms·

Misconceptions like yours are why the title is misleading. If you go to Uniswap right now you will not see any of these tokens and have a near 0% chance of bein

by Sargos 4y ago

Misconceptions like yours are why the title is misleading. If you go to Uniswap right now you will not see any of these tokens and have a near 0% chance of being scammed.

oarsinsync 4y ago
> If you go to Uniswap right now you will not see any of these tokens and have a near 0% chance of being scammed If there's 100 tokens listed on the front page, and one of them is a scam, that may be near 0%, but it's equally near to 2%. I'd be pretty confident that there's a >1% chance of being scammed on a platform like this. FTT wasn't thought to be a scam until it was proven to be. Unless a token issuer does so with fully audited accounting with real assets backing their tokens, why should any token not be default assumed to be a scam, instead of default assumed to be valid? Popularity and usage doesn't change this point. USDT may be incredibly popular, but it also lacks credibility. Disclaimer: I still remain long BTC (lol@myself)
- saurik 4y ago
  > ...but it's equally near to 2%. Ignoring anything else you might have gotten wrong, the comment you are responding to didn't say a 2.3% chance of being scammed, it said a 2.3% chance of NOT being scammed, which is nowhere near 0% or 2%, as it comes from abusing the 97.7% figure from the paper.
  - oarsinsync 4y ago
    As amused as I am to be roasted by the great cydia himself, ignoring all the other things I got wrong, I wasn’t actually responding to the 2.3% claim, but rather the original claim that the top 100 tokens on the front page weren’t scams. I think the majority of those top 100 tokens are not properly audited with tangible assets backing them. FTT remains the most recent glowing example.
pyrale 4y ago
It's not misconceptions, it's accepting that the whole ecosystem is fraudulent, and that as an intermediation layer, uniswap fails to protect consumers. If any payment processor was letting 97.7% of its merchant users be fraudulent, they would be closed yesterday.
- Sargos 4y ago
  This paper is discussing listings and not volume. No one is claiming these tokens had any amount of meaningful volume and most likely weren't even traded by a real user. If 97% of Uniswap's volume was fraudulent then I wouldn't even give it the time of day. To fix your analogy, it's like a payment processor having thousands of fake storefronts able to accept payment. If 97% of their volume was to those fake entities then definitely shut them down but most of the volume would be Amazon and Walmart and the fake storefronts wouldn't even be a rounding error. Volume info: https://info.uniswap.org/ https://info.uniswap.org/

by Sargos 4y ago

Misconceptions like yours are why the title is misleading. If you go to Uniswap right now you will not see any of these tokens and have a near 0% chance of being scammed.

oarsinsync 4y ago

> If you go to Uniswap right now you will not see any of these tokens and have a near 0% chance of being scammed If there's 100 tokens listed on the front page, and one of them is a scam, that may be near 0%, but it's equally near to 2%. I'd be pretty confident that there's a >1% chance of being scammed on a platform like this. FTT wasn't thought to be a scam until it was proven to be. Unless a token issuer does so with fully audited accounting with real assets backing their tokens, why should any token not be default assumed to be a scam, instead of default assumed to be valid? Popularity and usage doesn't change this point. USDT may be incredibly popular, but it also lacks credibility. Disclaimer: I still remain long BTC (lol@myself)

saurik 4y ago
> ...but it's equally near to 2%. Ignoring anything else you might have gotten wrong, the comment you are responding to didn't say a 2.3% chance of being scammed, it said a 2.3% chance of NOT being scammed, which is nowhere near 0% or 2%, as it comes from abusing the 97.7% figure from the paper.
- oarsinsync 4y ago
  As amused as I am to be roasted by the great cydia himself, ignoring all the other things I got wrong, I wasn’t actually responding to the 2.3% claim, but rather the original claim that the top 100 tokens on the front page weren’t scams. I think the majority of those top 100 tokens are not properly audited with tangible assets backing them. FTT remains the most recent glowing example.

pyrale 4y ago

It's not misconceptions, it's accepting that the whole ecosystem is fraudulent, and that as an intermediation layer, uniswap fails to protect consumers. If any payment processor was letting 97.7% of its merchant users be fraudulent, they would be closed yesterday.

Sargos 4y ago
This paper is discussing listings and not volume. No one is claiming these tokens had any amount of meaningful volume and most likely weren't even traded by a real user. If 97% of Uniswap's volume was fraudulent then I wouldn't even give it the time of day. To fix your analogy, it's like a payment processor having thousands of fake storefronts able to accept payment. If 97% of their volume was to those fake entities then definitely shut them down but most of the volume would be Amazon and Walmart and the fake storefronts wouldn't even be a rounding error. Volume info: https://info.uniswap.org/ https://info.uniswap.org/