You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
On metrics to be cautious of - why raw token transfer volume (with stablecoin transfer volume as a subset) is a bad metric, and raw DEX volume may also be:
For token transfers: It's tough to make a "better version," because there can be 0 cost to inflate it. It's arguably easier to fake than active addresses. I'd be against any metric to do with this.
For DEXs: Maybe a better metric would be to just look at DEX fees, rather than DEX volume. I think Defillama has this.
On metrics to be cautious of - why raw token transfer volume (with stablecoin transfer volume as a subset) is a bad metric, and raw DEX volume may also be:
A new DEX heavily inflated stablecoin transfer volumes (2nd time this has happened to my knowledge): https://x.com/artemis/status/1874526932479644035
Blockworks is filtering this DEX out, identified that it has 0 fees, so people just wash on it: https://x.com/smyyguy/status/1873461468886454394
For token transfers: It's tough to make a "better version," because there can be 0 cost to inflate it. It's arguably easier to fake than active addresses. I'd be against any metric to do with this.
For DEXs: Maybe a better metric would be to just look at DEX fees, rather than DEX volume. I think Defillama has this.
Tag #1190
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: