Yeah, people should remember that they have 2.3% chance of not getting scammed on uniswap. That's the definition of safe to use.
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.