I'm suspicious of describing "DeFi tokens" as a category.
These tokens have vastly different characteristics & pose varied & complex risks, as do their underlying protocols.
Calling them all "DeFi tokens" both legitimizes the terrible projects & undermines the space as a whole.
These tokens have vastly different characteristics & pose varied & complex risks, as do their underlying protocols.
Calling them all "DeFi tokens" both legitimizes the terrible projects & undermines the space as a whole.
I have the same problem with "personal tokens."
Some are just interesting & harmless experiments by people playing with new tech. Others are blatant attempts to raise money by selling investment contracts, reminiscent of ICOs.
The former suffers by association with the latter.
Some are just interesting & harmless experiments by people playing with new tech. Others are blatant attempts to raise money by selling investment contracts, reminiscent of ICOs.
The former suffers by association with the latter.
There's something genuinely exciting happening here: the creation of natively digital assets with novel, unique, & diverse (if experimental) properties.
But if we've learned anything in crypto, it's that real innovation begets flawed imitation, which begets fraudulent schemes.
But if we've learned anything in crypto, it's that real innovation begets flawed imitation, which begets fraudulent schemes.
That's why I get worried when I see calls for a "DeFi boom" or the like.
It's hard enough for people who live & breathe crypto to keep up with the blazing pace of development, & at least we know where to find reliable info.
The chance of newcomers making bad decisions is high.
It's hard enough for people who live & breathe crypto to keep up with the blazing pace of development, & at least we know where to find reliable info.
The chance of newcomers making bad decisions is high.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
