I could say the following:
similarweb.com states that Paypal.com had 500 million visits in the last 6 months, which is the same as 2.7 million per day.
Looking at the last 20 payments I've made with Paypal, my average transaction size is ~20 dollars.
Therefore, Paypal has a daily transaction value of (20 * 2.7 million) only $54 million, which is less than 10% of bitcoin's daily transaction value.
Bitcoin is 10 times bigger than Paypal.
What I've said is clearly nonsense, but it also follows the exact same method as in this "article".
Topic: New Report Warns 87 Percent of Cryptocurrency Exchange Volume Is Potentially Sus - page 3. (Read 551 times)
March 20, 2019, 03:29:32 PM
March 20, 2019, 03:17:14 PM
If each exchange averaged the volume per visit of CoinbasePro, Gemini, Poloniex, Binance, and Kraken, we would expect the real trading volume among the largest 100 exchanges to equal $2.1 (billion) per day. Currently that number is being reported as $15.9 (billion).
This is by far the dumbest equation I have seen created in order to have some headline on their website. How can someone translate a website visit into becoming a official traded volume of an exchange without even factual evidence that the viewer have actually traded or even has an account to trade in? Are they actually confident or at least aware that their readers only read through the headlines and not the whole article that they made some shitty content based on a big assumption?
March 20, 2019, 02:28:23 PM
They used a stupid method, and therefore got stupid results. No conclusions can be drawn from this report.
A great number of persons will not read, or understand, or care about the calculation method.
The fact that somebody made a "report" with this conclusion is enough. Then people will start referring to this news to prove that crypto is scam or whatever suits them best to be proven.
This is the next level of fake news.
March 20, 2019, 10:51:58 AM
What a completely nonsense report. If you follow the links through to the data they used here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13_L5V9elxQ3xps62BeYVyr_Wu-9vfyAyN5tGqLNoV9Y/edit#gid=1415549973), it is all over the place.
They calculated the average trading volume to be $591, but they don't say how the arrived at that number. Then then multiplied that number by the number of website visits for each exchange for per month, to arrive at an "expected volume" number. That has to be one of these least scientific methods I could possible imagine, and it shows in how wildly inaccurate some of their numbers are. They are suggesting, for example, that KuCoin's real trading volume is actually 1300% higher than what KuCoin are reporting. I can understand smaller exchanges falsely reporting higher volumes in an attempt to seem bigger, but what possible reason would KuCoin have to make themselves seem smaller and less significant than they are? Similar, they suggest that Poloniex is actually 930% higher and Bittrex are 430% than they are reporting.
They used a stupid method, and therefore got stupid results. No conclusions can be drawn from this report.
They calculated the average trading volume to be $591, but they don't say how the arrived at that number. Then then multiplied that number by the number of website visits for each exchange for per month, to arrive at an "expected volume" number. That has to be one of these least scientific methods I could possible imagine, and it shows in how wildly inaccurate some of their numbers are. They are suggesting, for example, that KuCoin's real trading volume is actually 1300% higher than what KuCoin are reporting. I can understand smaller exchanges falsely reporting higher volumes in an attempt to seem bigger, but what possible reason would KuCoin have to make themselves seem smaller and less significant than they are? Similar, they suggest that Poloniex is actually 930% higher and Bittrex are 430% than they are reporting.
They used a stupid method, and therefore got stupid results. No conclusions can be drawn from this report.
March 19, 2019, 12:08:47 PM
New Report Warns 87 Percent of Cryptocurrency Exchange Volume Is Potentially Suspicious
Almost 90 percent of cryptocurrency exchanges’ reported trade volumes may be incorrect, new research from trading analytics platform The Tie warned in a digest released on March 18.
Reporting on figures gathered from 97 exchanges, researchers found that the vast majority of the volume claimed to come from users may not in fact exist.
The revelations came as a result of calculations of lesser-known exchanges versus well-known businesses such as Binance and Kraken.
“In total, we estimated that 87% of exchanges reported trading volume was potentially suspicious and that 75% of exchanges had some form of suspicious activity occurring on them,” The Tie wrote in social media comments on the findings. The organization added:
“If each exchange averaged the volume per visit of CoinbasePro, Gemini, Poloniex, Binance, and Kraken, we would expect the real trading volume among the largest 100 exchanges to equal $2.1 (billion) per day. Currently, that number is being reported as $15.9 (billion).”
Exchanges have often fielded accusations of volume misreporting: a similar reported issued in March 2018 warned of similar problems with data from exchanges.
Then, as now, Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ) took industry participants to task, arguing listing resources such as CoinMarketCap added to the confusion.
“Why do exchanges fake volumes?” he queried on Twitter following The Tie’s report. CZ also wrote:
“(CoinMarketCap) is [the] highest traffic website in our space, and [the] biggest referrer for all exchanges. Ranked high on CMC has benefits for getting new users. BUT at the expense of DESTROYING CREDIBILITY with pro users.”
Zhang repeated similar claims about CoinMarketCap which appeared in December, focusing on the the top 25 Bitcoin (BTC) trading pairs.
Last month, meanwhile, Cointelegraph reported on how overall exchange volumes had dropped to their lowest levels since May 2017.
Reference: https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-report-warns-87-percent-of-cryptocurrency-exchange-volume-is-potentially-suspicious
Almost 90 percent of cryptocurrency exchanges’ reported trade volumes may be incorrect, new research from trading analytics platform The Tie warned in a digest released on March 18.
Reporting on figures gathered from 97 exchanges, researchers found that the vast majority of the volume claimed to come from users may not in fact exist.
The revelations came as a result of calculations of lesser-known exchanges versus well-known businesses such as Binance and Kraken.
“In total, we estimated that 87% of exchanges reported trading volume was potentially suspicious and that 75% of exchanges had some form of suspicious activity occurring on them,” The Tie wrote in social media comments on the findings. The organization added:
“If each exchange averaged the volume per visit of CoinbasePro, Gemini, Poloniex, Binance, and Kraken, we would expect the real trading volume among the largest 100 exchanges to equal $2.1 (billion) per day. Currently, that number is being reported as $15.9 (billion).”
Exchanges have often fielded accusations of volume misreporting: a similar reported issued in March 2018 warned of similar problems with data from exchanges.
Then, as now, Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ) took industry participants to task, arguing listing resources such as CoinMarketCap added to the confusion.
“Why do exchanges fake volumes?” he queried on Twitter following The Tie’s report. CZ also wrote:
“(CoinMarketCap) is [the] highest traffic website in our space, and [the] biggest referrer for all exchanges. Ranked high on CMC has benefits for getting new users. BUT at the expense of DESTROYING CREDIBILITY with pro users.”
Zhang repeated similar claims about CoinMarketCap which appeared in December, focusing on the the top 25 Bitcoin (BTC) trading pairs.
Last month, meanwhile, Cointelegraph reported on how overall exchange volumes had dropped to their lowest levels since May 2017.
Reference: https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-report-warns-87-percent-of-cryptocurrency-exchange-volume-is-potentially-suspicious
Jump to: