2026-01-16 02:32:37

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.

10 Likes

Reward
10
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

FrontRunFighter

· 01-18 05:17

nah this is exactly the dark forest in action—moving fees around doesn't make you a builder, it just makes you a parasite extracting value. sloppy code tho? that's where the real exploitation happens. sandwich attacks on poorly audited contracts print money for mev bots while retail bagholders get liquidated. seen this playbook a thousand times.

Reply0

TrustlessMaximalist

· 01-17 23:35

ngl that's why I never touch new small coins that just launched... sloppy code and a quick audit and it's doomed

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHarvester

· 01-16 19:19

Damn, that's why so many projects are just paper tigers—terrible code but still dare to call themselves founders...

View OriginalReply0

TokenomicsDetective

· 01-16 03:02

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

· 01-16 02:54

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

· 01-16 02:45

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

· 01-16 02:42

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

· 01-16 02:42

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

· 01-16 02:39

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

· 01-16 02:34

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.

Reply0