Here's the thing about crypto projects claiming creator status—simply redirecting creator fees to someone doesn't actually make them the architect of that coin. The mechanism itself is fundamentally flawed. You're essentially just moving numbers around. That's not proof of anything.
And when sloppy engineering sits at the foundation? That's when real damage happens. Poor code quality, inadequate audits, rushed deployments—these aren't minor hiccups. They directly impact users' assets and portfolios. Cutting corners in development phases has real consequences that ripple through the community. People lose money. Projects lose credibility.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
8 Likes
Reward
8
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
TokenomicsDetective
· 3h ago
Nah, that's why so many projects run away after a pump-and-dump, with terrible code and still dare to call themselves founders.
View OriginalReply0
SelfSovereignSteve
· 3h ago
NGL, this is why so many projects rug pull, with terrible code and still dare to call themselves creators... I really can't hold back.
View OriginalReply0
RetiredMiner
· 3h ago
Haha, really, these projects just play the transfer tricks, thinking that changing a name makes you the founder? Laugh out loud.
Poor code, perfunctory audits, rushed launches... these are the real killer moves, directly digging into users' pockets.
View OriginalReply0
BearMarketMonk
· 3h ago
Just changing numbers and claiming to be an architect? I've seen too many tricks like this during this cycle.
The code is fundamentally bad, audits are just a formality, and in the end, it's the retail investors' wallets that suffer. History keeps repeating itself, only the chives are evolving.
View OriginalReply0
ProposalDetective
· 3h ago
Nah, this is exactly what I've been wanting to say. Just a quick transfer and you claim to be the founder? Laughable, it's completely unsubstantiated.
The code is a mess and still dares to go live. In the end, it's the retail investors' coins in their wallets that get lost. I really can't hold back anymore.
View OriginalReply0
BTCWaveRider
· 3h ago
ngl These projects claiming to be founded by someone just revolve money around... The code is so bad yet they dare to go live, sooner or later they'll be socially dead.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidationWatcher
· 4h ago
nah this hits different after what i watched happen in 2022... sloppy code = liquidation cascade waiting to happen. been there, lost that. watch your health factors fam.
Here's the thing about crypto projects claiming creator status—simply redirecting creator fees to someone doesn't actually make them the architect of that coin. The mechanism itself is fundamentally flawed. You're essentially just moving numbers around. That's not proof of anything.
And when sloppy engineering sits at the foundation? That's when real damage happens. Poor code quality, inadequate audits, rushed deployments—these aren't minor hiccups. They directly impact users' assets and portfolios. Cutting corners in development phases has real consequences that ripple through the community. People lose money. Projects lose credibility.