Forum advertising DeFi totally-not-scams

[suchmoon]

Just posting this here for posterity so that when it bitconnects the shit out of gullible idiots I can say "told you so":



I would have thought it falls under

anything that a person can be said to "invest" in

but what do I know, perhaps it's

ultra legit

because

I decided to accept Phore's bids.

[1715509749]

1715509749

[1715509749]

1715509749

[1715509749]

1715509749

[1715509749]

1715509749

[jackg]

The site is pretty empty, they don't look to have Sourcecode and their legal link took me to medium...

[suchmoon]

The site is pretty empty, they don't look to have Sourcecode and their legal link took me to medium...

Do they even have a site? I mean the ad itself links to a Medium article. There is a website for the Phore shitcoin, bagholders of which are going to get this Graphene airdrop... I think.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

The site is pretty empty, they don't look to have Sourcecode and their legal link took me to medium...

Do they even have a site? I mean the ad itself links to a Medium article. There is a website for the Phore shitcoin, bagholders of which are going to get this Graphene airdrop... I think.

I need a link.

Sometimes theymos miss points when he investigate but later when he is asked to review he does. I think not long ago there was a case and he removed the advertising.

[pugman]

The site is pretty empty, they don't look to have Sourcecode and their legal link took me to medium...

Do they even have a site? I mean the ad itself links to a Medium article. There is a website for the Phore shitcoin, bagholders of which are going to get this Graphene airdrop... I think.

I need a link.

Sometimes theymos miss points when he investigate but later when he is asked to review he does. I think not long ago there was a case and he removed the advertising.

This helps? : https://phore.io/

There is no site for graphene, at least from what i checked, all I found was this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhoreProject/comments/jaupe3/graphene_next_generation_blockchain_platform/

https://medium.com/@phoreblockchain/synapse-update-introducing-graphene-1d5a1cb21f8

[theymos]

In evaluating these sorts of things, I try to determine whether the ad is intended to attract investment; if it is, then it's not allowed. Just because it's possible to invest in the advertised thing doesn't mean that it must be rejected: I'm looking at the intent of the ad. I was convinced in this case that the ad is aimed at attracting interest in the technology, not attracting investment. Neither the ad nor the linked article encourages people to buy Graphene tokens. You'd actually have to do a bit of work to figure out how to buy the tokens: you'd have to research further to figure out how that Graphene tokens will be airdropped to holders of Phore, and then you'd have to buy Phore. Phore also apparently has a working marketplace app, which makes me think that the whole thing isn't complete vaporware. So my overall sense here is that Phore is actually trying to build a product, and they're trying with this ad to generate interest in the product, not to generate interest in investing in Phore/Graphene. This is allowed. (Advertised things do not have to be good/useful to be accepted, BTW. Ads are not endorsements/recommendations. I'm just trying to prevent forum users from getting scammed due to ads.)

Now, I could be missing some context here. I don't follow this space very much at all, I never heard of Phore or Graphene before this, and there's a limit to how much time I can spend time researching this stuff.

I have on many occasions rejected ads for being for investments, often very significantly reducing ad revenue for that ad round. I would've done it here without hesitation if necessary.

[suchmoon]

~

To be clear, I'm not claiming that Phore will run away with someone's money - they may or may not - but they're clearly attempting to cash in on the DeFi craze, which is 99% scams akin to the 2017 ICO nonsense (IMO). To me the intent looks clearly "buy Phore because DeFi".

Also it doesn't seem to be related to this: http://cryptoeconomics.cs.umass.edu/graphene/graphene-short.pdf so the name choice is unfortunate at best.

[theymos]

Advertising Phore itself definitely wouldn't be allowed. That's why I initially rejected their bids in the auction. Phore is definitely an "ICO-type-thing", which is explicitly banned from advertising: buying these sorts of tokens is something like buying shares in penny stocks, but even far more risky. However, I interpret this ad as advertising a product of Phore, namely the Graphene ecosystem and apps built on top of it such as their Marketplace. By analogy, I see this like Nikola advertising their fuel cell technology and their maybe-soon-to-be-available vehicles, not Nikola advertising NKLA shares.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

but they're clearly attempting to cash in on the DeFi craze, which is 99% scams akin to the 2017 ICO nonsense (IMO). To me the intent looks clearly "buy Phore because DeFi".

Yeah, you're most likely right.  There's suddenly a new tech (DeFi) and all of the computer-literate hucksters, scammers, retards, and others come out of the woodwork in order to cash in on it without actually advancing the underlying technology if they even use it to begin with.  And yep, that's just what happened with the ICO craze, although DeFi seems like it might be useful to some folks whereas 99.9999% of ICO projects were obvious nonsense upon reading the first paragraph of the ANN thread.

I don't understand what Graphene or Phore are, but hopefully people can judge for themselves whether they want to get involved in it.  Theymos shouldn't be shouldering any responsibility for what Phore might do IMO.  He doesn't see it as an obvious scam, and he's just allowing them to purchase some advertising space on the forum.  Big effin' deal. 

We'll wait until there's a rock-solid scam accusation against them until we nail Theymos up on a telephone pole.  Sound good?

[dzungmobile]

It is an old project in 2017, a PoS/ Masternode coin, PHORE https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2307909.0
Then switched to a new ANN thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3179265.0
Announcement on Graphene https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3179265.msg55388708#msg55388708

[Vod]

I never heard of Phore or Graphene before this, and there's a limit to how much time I can spend time researching this stuff.

You've been very generous handing out coin before - why not hire a professional to evaluate the ads?

[theymos]

You've been very generous handing out coin before - why not hire a professional to evaluate the ads?

Phore only paid about $500 for this ad. It wouldn't make economic sense, especially since many advertisers would have to be checked for every one ad that is accepted, wins slots in the auction, and ends up paying. By memory, I'd guess that in the last 3 years there's been only 2 or 3 ads pulled after acceptance due to something I missed. Bitcointalk.org ads are far more high-quality than eg. AdSense ads are. If even this low level of risk became unacceptable, then it'd make more sense to just not sell ads. (Not selling ads is something that I've considered, since it's a lot of trouble for not really that much return, but without ads the forum's cashflow would currently be way too far in the negative. I'd have to come up with an additional source of revenue first.)

This case seems to be a difference of opinion on policy rather than an issue of something I missed, though. I just see very little potential for harm from this ad, even if Phore's tokens are risky. It seems very unlikely to me that even a single person is going to view this ad and/or read the linked article, develop a desire to invest in Graphene despite the lack of any real suggestion from the ad/article to do so, do the research to figure out that they need to buy Phore tokens to get Graphene tokens, and go do that. Rather, the purpose of the ad seems to be to improve Graphene's reputation as a platform for dApps, not to attract investment. The state of the ad auction was such that rejecting Phore's ad would've resulted in no loss in revenue whatsoever; I allowed it as a matter of fairness/consistency.

[PrimeNumber7]

I would say the medium article is something closer to drumming up interest in an altcoin rather than an investment. I would compare the article linked in the ad to an article educating the reader about bcash or etherum.

Would an article discussing why (in the author's opinion) bcash is superior to bitcoin be allowed? If not, this ad should probably not be allowed. (I don't think bcash is superior to bitcoin, however, I do support the free-flow of ideas, and rigorous debate; people should believe bcash is inferior after reading an open discussion with a maximum amount of information available).

[suchmoon]

Phore only paid about $500 for this ad.

Come to think of it - that's probably cheaper than those useless press releases you'll find on PR Newswire and whatnot.

[hilariousetc]

You've been very generous handing out coin before - why not hire a professional to evaluate the ads?

Phore only paid about $500 for this ad. It wouldn't make economic sense, especially since many advertisers would have to be checked for every one ad that is accepted, wins slots in the auction, and ends up paying. By memory, I'd guess that in the last 3 years there's been only 2 or 3 ads pulled after acceptance due to something I missed. Bitcointalk.org ads are far more high-quality than eg. AdSense ads are. If even this low level of risk became unacceptable, then it'd make more sense to just not sell ads. (Not selling ads is something that I've considered, since it's a lot of trouble for not really that much return, but without ads the forum's cashflow would currently be way too far in the negative.

I'm sure you can find someone on staff who would be willing to verify adverts. As I've said before, I don't think we should get rid of as slots completely. At the worst measure you could just refuse bids from any companies that you're possibly unsure of or are even remotely questionable, but this would still seem extreme to me. I still think you should consider putting a more prominent banner advert at the top of a couple of the more popular sub boards, especially the Gambling Section. It's seemingly mostly gambling sites that bid on the auctions anyway and it's usually from reputable casinos so there's not much issue with them. I'm sure that banner would attract a premium price as many casinos seem to quite obviously want to target their audience there (and we see this with their signature campaigns where they often require x amount if posts in the gambling section or pay more for ones in there). You could even maybe sell it for a fixed price or issue them for longer periods of time like monthly, quarterly or bi-annually or something so you didn't have to waste too much time on them.

I'd have to come up with an additional source of revenue first.

I think you should strongly consider more donator ranks with some perks (Silver and Gold Memberships etc). I think they'd be very popular and would be a good source of income for the forum.

Phore only paid about $500 for this ad.

Come to think of it - that's probably cheaper than those useless press releases you'll find on PR Newswire and whatnot.

A lot of the time the ad slots do go for quite cheap, but the slot isn't very prominent in my opinion, hence why most probably prefer signature campaigns. I've actually even had numerous people over the years enquire why we don't have ads. They probably just blend in as another signature to most.

[squatz1]

I would say the medium article is something closer to drumming up interest in an altcoin rather than an investment. I would compare the article linked in the ad to an article educating the reader about bcash or etherum.

Would an article discussing why (in the author's opinion) bcash is superior to bitcoin be allowed? If not, this ad should probably not be allowed. (I don't think bcash is superior to bitcoin, however, I do support the free-flow of ideas, and rigorous debate; people should believe bcash is inferior after reading an open discussion with a maximum amount of information available).

Pretty sure it's not the part about opinion or about technology that is the issue here.

It's the part that Theymos thinks that the advertisement that Phore itself is using isn't advertising an investment but they are advertising the the technology behind what they're building and the usage of it. It's easily arguable that there is a DIRECT LINK between talking about the technology behind a coin and a product trying to drum up some hype for people to buy the coin.

Not sure if I'm a fan of advertising products like this, kinda sounds like a wormhole of people coming in and talking about the wild claims of their coin even if there is little to no chance of any of that coming to fruition. Not knocking the idea of Phore or whatever as I really know nothing about it, but still.

As an aside question, what would your thoughts be about advertising the more legitimate companies in DeFi such as Compound, Aave, and so on?

[suchmoon]

Well, I've slept on it, and I still cringe when I see "DeFi" on the forum banner. Feels like a throw back to the good old times of having "GAW Hashlets" and stuff like that up there.

squatz1 - funny you should say that because I borrowed 15 grand from Aave for betting in Polymarket, which you mentioned in P&S... so it's your fault if I get scammed. But seriously, there have been very legitimate DeFi's getting "hacked" and whatnot. I think the smart contract part is giving some people false sense of security (your keys etc). In reality, even if there is no hack or backdoor, on top of the usual investment scam - buy some useless token and watch it getting dumped - there are also the risks of leveraged lending etc. There is no magic money making machine. This latest wave is more elaborate than your usual pyramid/ponzi/lending/arbitrage/etc scam but it's a scam nonetheless.

[webtricks]

But seriously, there have been very legitimate DeFi's getting "hacked" and whatnot. I think the smart contract part is giving some people false sense of security (your keys etc). In reality, even if there is no hack or backdoor, on top of the usual investment scam - buy some useless token and watch it getting dumped - there are also the risks of leveraged lending etc. There is no magic money making machine. This latest wave is more elaborate than your usual pyramid/ponzi/lending/arbitrage/etc scam but it's a scam nonetheless.

You are forgetting the most important risk associated with DeFi - 'rug pull'. None of the DeFi platform is safe from this attack especially yield farming ones. Since liquidity pools are automated, anyone can dump the increased supply of one token and take out ETH/stable coins in seconds. Unlike normal makers market where dump is sustained at various support levels, price of dumped token in liquidity pool will instantly fall by 95-99%.

We saw in last couple of days that even audited yield farming platform Compounder turned scam. So yeah, not only 'smart contract' but 'audited smart contract' part is false sense of security as well. Even though the auditors of Compounder, Solidity Labs confirmed the possible vulnerability in the contract but they didn't disclose the impact of vulnerability clearly. As a result, liquidity providers didn't pay much attention and the creators of Compounder replaced the audited code, minted new supply of CP3R tokens, dumped the tokens and took the entire supply of ETH and stable coins worth $11M out of the platform.

Even DeFi platforms having smart contracts with no backdoor aren't safe. Consider two yield farming platforms - A and B. The native token of A is AAA and of B is BBB. Suppose A is providing very high APR in AAA/BBB pair. Investors will put huge liquidity in this pair. Now suppose, the APR on platform B suddenly rises very much. Then the investors on platform A will dump their AAA for BBB. This will instantly kill the price the AAA even though there is no bug or scam attempt. This is another form of rug pull, happened in the case of Kimchi if I remember correctly when the APR on TEND platform rose. Investors dumped KIMCHI for TEND and guess what both coins suffered, KIMCHI almost lost 99%.

Thought initially as a lending/borrowing solution, that's what DeFi turning into.

[Vod]

To this community, DeFi may mean just another series of scams; use of legit bitcoin for illegit means.

But I believe the world at large views Defi as Decentralized Finance - of which bitcoin is a part of.  WE made the association between a very generic term and a specific type of transferable asset.

So I'm saying we should be careful badmouthing DeFi outside of established community, because it may inhibit crypto growth.

[suchmoon]

You are forgetting the most important risk associated with DeFi - 'rug pull'.

Well, it's kinda variation of pump/dump/leverage risks... but yeah. Thanks for elaborating.

To this community, DeFi may mean just another series of scams; use of legit bitcoin for illegit means.

But I believe the world at large views Defi as Decentralized Finance - of which bitcoin is a part of.  WE made the association between a very generic term and a specific type of transferable asset.

So I'm saying we should be careful badmouthing DeFi outside of established community, because it may inhibit crypto growth.

Pyramids in Egypt are great too. But ones you put money in - not so much. Just saying

TBH I didn't hear "decentralized finance" much until this recent token wave started and I don't think it's associated with Bitcoin, or at least not more than "crypto = scam = Bitcoin" association that's already out there due to ransomware etc.