Uniswap seems like on of the few actual bits of blockchain innovation. A distributed exchange is very cool.
Prevents things like FTX in theory right?
Do not rug on me: Zero-dimensional Scam Detection
51–60 of 158 posts
Re: Do not rug on me: Zero-dimensional Scam Detection
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
do you dispute the OP title claim?
Why would I dispute it? At best the title is misleading though as most readers likely aren't aware of how Uniswap works and will think "97% of the tokens are scams so Uniswap is unsafe to use" which isn't true in the slightest.
Yeah, people should remember that they have 2.3% chance of not getting scammed on uniswap. That's the definition of safe to use.
Re: Do not rug on me: Zero-dimensional Scam Detection
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last time I've checked it was unusuable due the high trading fees. In theory it's great but in reality it's not really working.
As of this writing it is $2.39 to perform a swap on Ethereum Uniswap which isn't great but not too bad when compared to something like Coinbase. On L2s it's around 10 cents which I think most people would agree is acceptable. Fees from https://l2fees.info/
Just a reminder that L2s aren't decentralized yet, so don't put any serious money in L2s.
Re: Do not rug on me: Zero-dimensional Scam Detection
#54What constitutes a scam? I'm about as much of an NFT hater as you can be. But people spend money on lots of "dumb" stuff. So why is an NFT a scam if Pokemon cards aren't? Both of them are artificially scarce. Both of them are mainly about buying cute pictures. And at least for a lot of the buyers, it's about speculating the price will go up in the future.
Collectible card games, crypto and meme stocks have something fundamental in common: they are fun!
It’s fun for people to own and trade AMC, GameStop, Magic: The Gathering, Ethereum, NFTs, etc.
Re: Do not rug on me: Zero-dimensional Scam Detection
#55Some comments: While the report findings might be correct on the number, the terminology and conclusion in related discussion are often not. No real person ever traded these 26k tokens. The creation of liquidity pool should not be considered a launch, as you still somehow need to convince other people to buy it from you. Nothing was "launched".
These trading pairs are more akin to spam, to show up in the search results (somewhere else, do not show up on Uniswap). Other research find the scam volume is way less than 1% of the total trading volume. Only looking this number does not reflect the true health of the market or the controls Uniswap has in place to prevent trading these tokens.
We also do not call fake Viagram advertising email rug pull, even if it is clearly intended to steal your money without making your dick hard.
Re: Do not rug on me: Zero-dimensional Scam Detection
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
do you dispute the OP title claim?
Why would I dispute it? At best the title is misleading though as most readers likely aren't aware of how Uniswap works and will think "97% of the tokens are scams so Uniswap is unsafe to use" which isn't true in the slightest.
97% of the tokens are scams so it is safe to use? Or am I misunderstanding your point?
Re: Do not rug on me: Zero-dimensional Scam Detection
#57This paper has less credibility than the tokens they talk about. The definition of scam as they defined if "underperforming"
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".
Re: Do not rug on me: Zero-dimensional Scam Detection
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
97% of emails probably will though.
People don't usually trade emails for money though.
Of course not, but the point is that the lower the barrier to entry is, the greater the scammer-to-non-scammer ratio will be, as long as money is involved, or could be involved, either directly or indirectly.
Re: Do not rug on me: Zero-dimensional Scam Detection
#59> "However, the algorithm is only valuable for detecting scams accurately after they have been executed."
Forgive me, but isn't it only useful to detect scams before they happen?
Re: Do not rug on me: Zero-dimensional Scam Detection
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would I dispute it? At best the title is misleading though as most readers likely aren't aware of how Uniswap works and will think "97% of the tokens are scams so Uniswap is unsafe to use" which isn't true in the slightest.
97% of the tokens are scams so it is safe to use? Or am I misunderstanding your point?
If you go to Uniswap right now you won't see any of these tokens. You run no risk of getting scammed by using Uniswap unless you go out of your way and manually add them.