Topic: Forum advertising DeFi totally-not-scams (Read 683 times)

Funny isn't it? But defi hypes on degen play usually have some shallow depth info like this. Very surprising that they can pull off a good trades in the market. Now this phore is something people should avoid cause technically they aren't feeding much information on what is their project all about. But with a good tokenomics and hype factor. Trust me, on degen community this thing is called a gem and waiting to be pump and dump when it hits market.

Good example of this is bree and pamp network. Anything that pumps on defi hype especially if the money circulation is big, team can't resist and tend to do a rug pull. Clearly a defi stats that ought to remember.

My opinion is that the medium article is promoting the altcoin. I might compare it to an altcoin whitepaper, although a whitepaper would be more technical.
I would not allow an advertisement based on the company being 'legitimate'. There are plenty of legitimate companies that go bankrupt for reasons not being an exit scam, such as poor market conditions, or bad strategic decisions by management. Also, a legitimate company today may turn into a scam tomorrow.

Users with the following ranks can disable ads: Hero Member, Legendary, Donator, VIP, as well as moderators.

edit: this info is also provided in each ad slot auction thread:

Really!  What is the criteria to see that option?   I've always been able to see it, but I like new sites to scam bust. 

Not straightforward enough if I keep getting inquiries about advertising.


Most users don't have that option and it could always be taken away.


That's exactly why I suggested a banner at the bottom of the page. I don't think signatures are going away seeing theymos' past posts on this topic.


Yes, I get that too equally often.

EDIT: two minutes after making this post and I get a message about paid topic pinning. 

That definition seems to be for a type of position, not a general description of finance itself.

But it would make sense for a receptionist to say he is in "finance" if he has escrowed large amounts.

Edit:  Fixed quote to stop harassment from Mikey.   

I think describing Bitcoin as "Decentralized Finance" is a bad idea, Bitcoin isn't finance related by any means. according to the dictionary, the word finance is


The core of the word finance is "Management", which is essentially what all of these DeFi projects are all about, Bitcoin, as is, is not remotely close to that, Bitcoin, in a nutshell, is just a medium of exchange.

I think people would miss that one as well. The reason I suggest top is it's far more prominent at the top and will probably be the first thing you see. Theymos seems to be fairly against more advertising though, but I think a banner ad at the top would be less intrusive or annoying than signatures which the forum receives nothing monetarily from. Donator ranks would still be a good idea though.


Yeah, same. Auctions is probably one of the last places someone would go to. I know a few of us have received requests to buy sticked threads/promoted posts as well.


Well, that's if they even spot that in the first place.


Well you can already turn signatures off and they're still very popular. If someone wants to get rid of ads they'll probably find a way with an ad blocker or something and many people do use them and yet the internet is still full of adverts. If people are still paying for signatures or ads it doesn't really matter how many people may or may not be blocking them at the end of the day.

The link ("Advertise here") is right there under the banner, which is a logical place for it. So one click away if you're already in a thread, or two clicks if you're on the main page and need to click a thread first.

But whether the forum could use more banners is another story... I would imagine more users would start using the "Disable ads" option so it might defeat the purpose.

With how most cryptocurrency investments and investment vehicles work, the most a Staff member can do is make sure someone won't succeed in buying an ad for a blatant scam. Pretty much everything falls under the 'remotely questionable' label at the very least.


Yeah, the forum is definitely under-monetized; wouldn't hurt to have at least a single banner at the bottom of a page, feels less intrusive than at the top.


I've had numerous people ask me how to advertise on bitcointalk at all in the first place. Four clicks are required before a user finds themselves on the topic of the current ad slot auction, and that's if they know where to look in the first place.

Me neither.  But we have been in crypto for years.  We associate DeFi to tokens and gaming.

But think about the average person on the street.  Explain how bitcoin works and the term "Decentralized Finance" describes it perfectly.

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


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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.


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.

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

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).

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.