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.
It's preposterous to call a marketplace where less then 3% of the offerings are "legit" a safe market to use.
Its a digital marketplace. The digital space is full of attempted scams that never come to fruition, and their presence is no indication of engagement. Is that really that hard to wrap your head around?
I’m sure the AOL walled garden had much higher quality content than the internet at large.
[1] or whatever they are using now
What they'll conclude reading this is "wow, crypto is full of scams" and be right.
Email and Uniswap are both useful tools that are safe to use for even non-technical users. In fact Uniswap is safer as spam filters aren't 100% reliable but Uniswap's lists nearly are.
> “97% of the tokens are scams so Uniswap is unsafe to use"
People are likely to draw the unsafe assumption.
Sargos attempted to clarify that some safety is created with filtering via a trusted list.
My conclusion reading it was, crypto tokens are 98% scams. Uniswap is an exchange. It's a utility, using an open protocol. It's makeup reflects the makeup of the domain.
I told you.
Uniswap filters the tokens available the same modern email providers filters email. If you go looking in the spam folder and fall pray to a scam there, it is your fault, not the fault of the email provider.
I am mainly wondering about Uniswap being described as safe.
There's also the obvious case of the scammers getting a user to actually buy the token (perhaps through spam email or "pump groups" that give explicit instructions on how to perform the swap) which I'm not saying has never happened but I do claim is more rare. Even the obviously silly scam emails do have the occasional person click on them and lose their money. The upside is that getting scammed on Uniswap is actually harder as you need to manually bypass safety features.
It looks at transactions and attempts to classify coins as scam or not.
It doesn’t make any claims about the volume in scam coins. That’s more a clickbait headline and HN thread thing.
It’s most trying to contribute an algorithm for identifying scam coins.
See the appendix for features from the transactions that they used for their algorithm.
I don't know anything about the space, but it sounds like a fact and statistic that should be front and centre in peoples face all the time.
If you want to trade an unlisted token by adding the contract address manually, sure you can do that. But then it’s on you if you get scammed, like if you follow through on a solicitation from a spam email.
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 with fully audited accounting with real assets backing their tokens, why should any token not be default assumed to be a scam, instead of default assumed to be valid?
Popularity and usage doesn't change this point. USDT may be incredibly popular, but it also lacks credibility.
Disclaimer: I still remain long BTC (lol@myself)
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.
To fix your analogy, it's like a payment processor having thousands of fake storefronts able to accept payment. If 97% of their volume was to those fake entities then definitely shut them down but most of the volume would be Amazon and Walmart and the fake storefronts wouldn't even be a rounding error.
Volume info: https://info.uniswap.org/
Reminds me of "it either works or it doesn't, so there's a 50/50 chance"
And excluding users who haven't gone through that education hardly seems like the democratization of finance that these services advertise.
So uneducated users would really have to go out of their way to get scammed through there. Like having to go out of their way to follow up on a solicitation from something caught in a Gmail spam filter.