151–158 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who 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".
The real purpose is the expectation you'll sell them to a greater fool.
What 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.
> 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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is logically incoherent. It would only be true if you chose a token completely at random instead of choosing a widely-used token you wanted to use. Reminds me of "it either works or it doesn't, so there's a 50/50 chance"
Trusting all individuals to make safe decisions in a marketplace flooded with scams is just not scalable. You cannot educate every user in how to identify a scam. And excluding users who haven't gone through that education hardly seems like the democratization of finance that these services advertise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. No true crypto enthusiasts would use a centralized exchange. If they’re using an exchange, they must not be a true crypto enthusiast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Is saying “most of something” a universal generalisation? The comment didn’t say “you’re not a crypto enthusiast _unless_ you believe X”. It just made an assertion (which, for what it’s worth, I think is incorrect) that the majority have a certain belief.
It really doesn’t matter to the meaning of my comment whether the first sentence exists or not. You can simply remove it if you like, the rest of the comment is still comprehensible. And, most importantly, its main point - to differentiate between the kind of exchange the gp was referencing and the kind the post is about, still stands.
This is all just a case of nitpicking some small detail that is so common and annoying. It’s the “your battery is dying” to a screenshot.
Even disregarding that, are we really posting wikipedia links to No True Scotsman in 2022? Has anyone not heard of NTS? It just comes across as pedantic.
Finally, you’re all hung up on the definition of “crypto enthusiast” — but it doesn’t even have meaning in the specific context. It’s just an attempt to shorten a much longer comment (like this one).
In my head, crypto enthusiast was just the 15 character version of “that group of people who are very interested in the programming and theory of decentralized economies. They tend to attend crypto conferences, program solidity or other smart contract dsls, and use phrases like ‘not your keys, not your crypto’”.
In that context the statement was mostly tautological stage setting for the rest of the comment, so for the whole thing to get derailed by low effort, kind of rude, attempts “but it’s an almost, but not quite logical fallacy (well, NTS isn’t actually a logical fallacy, but I am going to snarkily imply it is one)” sniping is not only wasted space … it’s boring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This misconception is exactly why I made my comment. If you go to Uniswap right now you won't have access to any of these tokens. You are just about as safe as using Charles Schwab.
My Schwab account has insurance and oversight…there’s no universe where Uniswap is anywhere close to as safe as Schwab.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "popularity" issue does not help a payments/transaction system. I believe in the long term it will die. A merchant that tried accepting crypto payments and found that in the busiest day its clients couldn't pay due the high transaction fees will abandon the crypto payments entirely and wont come back when they get cheaper. Of course the system may still be used for the types of transactions that cannot be easily…
but it is not a payment protocol. It is a trade protocol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 w…
> ...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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure what gemini has to do with this, but most people who actually think crypto is interesting will tell you that _any_ centralized exchange (to include coinbase, gemini, the NYSE, even the ones in the future that haven’t been made yet) is against the ethos of crypto. Uniswap is an entirely different class of thing. The only scams possible in the _logic_ of Uniswap are those which would be considered bugs in the…
Ah the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. No true crypto enthusiasts would use a centralized exchange. If they’re using an exchange, they must not be a true crypto enthusiast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Not addressing the argument, but pointing out a fallacy on Wikipedia.