Hacker News Reader

> 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 is a scam then.

View on HN

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.

I still don't see how this doesn't apply to Pokemon cards.

That’s a really strange definition of “scam”. I would simply define a scam as something where you’re promised to receive something (a certain token, a token that is backed up by something, a promise of future work, et cetera), and then don’t receive it (either now or in the future).

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com