'I Lost Everything': How Squid Game Token Collapsed
coinmarketcap.com
coinmarketcap.com
https://mobile.twitter.com/FoldableHuman/status/145070815601...
Most people who are regular in this space , actively tried to spread the word out that its a scam and cautioned against buying it.
Yet coinmarketcap and the likes kept promoting it in their trending list , it was trivial for coinmarketcap to check programmatically this was a scam.
Given how much they make in terms of promotions and listing , they should have 100% checked the listing thoroughly before promoting it throughout the day in its trending list.
Its simply a lack of ethics and corruption from companies like coinmarketcap , businessinsider , etc which actively promoted this scam without even researching it well.
For coinmarketcap that’s, To showcase crypto projects which have been seeing a lot of price action, while filtering out projects with unfeasible buy and sell restrictions.
Ethics or corruption here, isn’t all about general morality, but rather being honest and actually providing the service they mention.
After that, its on the speculator whether they want to get into a projects/scam.
Still, "It's all scams" strikes me as overly simplistic, partly because there is observably a great deal of effort in crypto that appears to be quite genuine..
..but perhaps more to the point, the difference between amount of activity in crypto that is scammy v. amount of activity in literally all things money related that is scammy is not particularly huge.
> Unfortunately, many of the articles published about SQUID failed to make it clear this token is not officially affiliated with Netflix — giving it a sheen of respectability that may have lulled investors into a false sense of security.
So much blaming...
If you're the type to invest money that you need to eat and/or pay the rent, something terrible would happen anyway one day.
And then to play the game you need to wager 456 squid which you might lose. That's hilarious. I wondered how a "play to earn" scheme might work but this is basically gambling.
Who cares about "investors" who are too dumb to do research. This isn't investing by buying non-direct shares of a Chinese company with sketchy accounting, those I would feel bad for. This is "investing" by buying a joke coin and hoping some sucker buys it from you.
> Here’s the problem: the project’s creators didn’t just create one token, they created two.
> The other cryptocurrency is called Marbles — and this asset can only be earned by taking part in the project’s play-to-earn game. Only those who have accrued Marbles actually have the ability to sell their SQUID on the open market.
This is one of the most blatant scams, or really traps as far as crypto tokens go. So clearly this token had forced liquidity issues.
> Unfortunately, many of the articles published about SQUID failed to make it clear this token is not officially affiliated with Netflix — giving it a sheen of respectability that may have lulled investors into a false sense of security.
Is it really expected that the token was related to Netflix? Its a meme-coin and thats not new. If you think you're "investing" in coins and this is how you invest, then you're not a good investor. You may think you're investing, but you're just buying into a joke. This is why the SEC has rules around investments, and this is why everyone is told that good practice is to buy indexes. People _should_ know better but often don't.
Also, it looks like there was something fishy going on to trick people into thinking the token was valuable, either intentionally or accidentally. It looks like there was a liquidity issue, and that could have enabled a large holder to push the price really high in a short time - because if not enough people are selling, then whatever price some rando asks can be the new market price. That would also explain the immediate crash - the whale was done and left.
> CoinMarketCap had received multiple reports of users struggling to sell SQUID on the decentralized exchange PancakeSwap.
It looks like coin had very low liquidity.
> Just 35 minutes later — at 9.35am — SQUID appeared to hit highs of $2,861.80. A surge of 7,500% in three-and-a-half hours is unheard of… even in the notoriously volatile world of cryptocurrencies.
And it seems like some one over-paid or otherwise pushed the price high, probably also some frenzy and excitement thrown in.
Anyone who bought this is a moron.
I don't think this can be called investing, and I don't think the folks who got taken for a ride here deserve to be called "investors".
I have little to no crypto experience or knowledge. In what way does this expand the utility of the chain, and what problems does this allow to be solved?
What are the pros/cons of using this over something else?
"Blockchains" are just large distributed immutable databases, Bitcoin being the first working proof of concept to be a "public ledger," -- but pretty much only for "money."
Ethereum (really, the ERC-20 ethereum blockchain) is designed to not just be a "money" database, but a "general purpose" database. So you could theoretically build anything on it. One major use is "other coins," but you can do e.g. lotteries, NFTs, other forms of finance, game tokens -- anything where a publicly viewable/auditable database may be of some use.
And also, like other programming things, lots of footguns. :)
Say what you like about dogecoin and the early code-fork clones of early coins (BTC, LTC), at least they required some technical ability and maintenance of their respective blockchains (mining, nodes, etc). Ethereum enables ponzis on the scale never thought possible.
We are in scam times now where any idiot can clone an ERC20 contract and scam a million people (SHIB token has ~888k holders right now). It is still and will forever remain useless.
There are prediction markets, m-of-n digital wallets used by globe-spanning internet communities to manage their treasuries, decentralized social networks, hyper-scalable SNARK/STARK based validation of layer 2 state transitions, and decentralized markets for: permissionless/borderless trading and borrowing/lending of digital assets, buying and selling computing power, buying and selling bandwidth, hiring freelancers, and issuing and trading digital game assets.
Beyond that, DeFi opens up new possibilities like tapping the liquidity in your digital art via a self executing loan that uses the art as the collateral.
The extreme reliability of the Ethereum protocol allows massive amounts of value belonging to a huge set of mutually distrusting parties to be committed to self-executing programmatic contracts that, barring the managable risk of software design error, are guaranteed to execute as intended. This provides enormous value by reducing the overhead added by non-reliability of and bureaucratic limitations on contracts.
100% Correct. There are more 'ERC 20 tokens' than 'coins' like BTC or LTC these days. Now any Jim, Jane and Joe can mint their own tokens using cointool [0]. Seems like ETH is the main facilitator of these scams.
First it started with ICOs (Introduced by Ethereum), then it was the ERC-20 tokens (which influenced everyone else to do), then the first DAO which failed after a hack and created a Ethereum hard fork and now they have done NFTs.
Ethereum has scaled up creating new classes of scams and ponzis whilst generating massive fees for every. single. operation.
Isn't all financial crime an expression of economic empowerment and free enterprise?
Nobody, especially Bitcoiners, likes fraud.
Large ones meanwhile can provide competition to each other that ensures the consumer gets the best quality store-of-value/medium-of-exchange/smart-contract-platform/etc available. Generalizing them all as scams is really overly simplistic, and hostile to contract freedom.
That's the part that I understand the least, buying a random shitcoin costs 50$ to authorize the DApp and then another 50$ to process the actual transaction. How can financial transactions withsuch high transaction fees be considered innovative is a mystery.
https://techweez.com/2018/01/26/ponzicoin-crypto-scheme/
What we need is Matt Levine's "Certificate of Dumb Investment".
> I have written before about my own fantasy for consumer securities regulation, which would solve all of these problems but which would probably face some political hurdles in getting enacted. It goes roughly like this:
>> Anyone can invest all they want in a diversified portfolio of approved investments (non-penny-stock public companies, mutual funds and exchange-traded funds with modest fees, insured bank accounts, etc.).
>> Anyone can also invest in any other dumb investment; you just have to go to the local office of the SEC and get a Certificate of Dumb Investment. (Anyone who sells dumb non-approved investments without requiring this certificate from buyers goes to prison.)
>> To get that certificate, you sign a form. The form is one page with a lot of white space. It says in very large letters: “I want to buy a dumb investment. I understand that the person selling it will almost certainly steal all my money, and that I would almost certainly be better off just buying index funds, but I want to do this dumb thing anyway. I agree that I will never, under any circumstances, complain to anyone when this investment inevitably goes wrong. I understand that violating this agreement is a felony.”
>> Then you take the form to an SEC employee, who slaps you hard across the face and says “really???” And if you reply “yes really” then she gives you the certificate.
>> Then you bring the certificate to the seller and you can buy whatever dumb thing he is selling.
>> If an article ever appears in the Wall Street Journal in which you (or your lawyer) are quoted saying that you were just a simple dentist, didn’t understand what you were buying and were swindled by the seller’s flashy sales pitch, then you go to prison.
> I am open to compromise on the details. The point is that the right general approach to the problem of people buying dumb investments is to give them much, much, much clearer and starker and scarier warnings before they invest, and then much, much, much less sympathy if they do it anyway.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-09-24/earnin...
Stellar job by Auntie Beeb.
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."