4 ms·
I get your point, and it's worth pointing out. It's just neutral infrastructure. Trying to think of an analogy, I thought... "It would be like saying 98% of tr
by jrochkind1 4y ago
I get your point, and it's worth pointing out.
It's just neutral infrastructure. Trying to think of an analogy, I thought... "It would be like saying 98% of transactions in $USD are scams, that wouldn't mean $USD are unsafe to use."
But once i said that in my head... it would definitely say something about a traditional currency if 98% of transactions were scams. (I know uniswap isn't a currency, that just came out of my attempt at an analogy). Something not good. About something. Maybe it doesn't mean uniswap is unsafe to use, but wow, it means something is a mess.
If it just means that there are a crazy ton of people trying scams with tokens, that sure seems like something to be aware of.
- Sargos 4y agoIt's important to note that this paper is discussing listings and not transactions/volume. Almost no one used or bought these tokens and 99% of Uniswap's volume is normal safe things like ETH, DAI, etc. If 98% of Uniswap trades were scams then I definitely wouldn't be here discussing it.
- mudrockbestgirl 4y agoNo, because the number of tokens doesn't matter, the trade volume does. It's not the case that 98% of trade volume/value is scams. The same applies to your USD analogy. It doesn't matter if 98% of transactions are scams if these 98% are worth a few dollars only. A scammer could make a million transaction worth a cent each. That's very different from a trillion dollars being used in a few big scam transactions.