📈 A deceptive number: How statistics can be misleading
⚫️ A developer from DeDust.io noticed an unexpectedly high trading volume on the TONCO exchange. After investigating, he discovered that most of this volume was generated by arbitrage bots. Technically, the number was correct, but without proper context, it could paint a misleading picture.
⚫️ This isn’t the only case of “deceptive numbers” in TON. For example, when the “Open League” awarded prizes based on transaction volume, some users figured out they could swap funds in stablecoin pairs with minimal losses—repeating the process back and forth many times. This artificially inflated their transaction volume, even though they ended up with the same assets they started with. The tactic served no practical purpose other than gaming the system.
⚫️ A third example from the crypto world predates TON’s rise and occurred at the height of the NFT boom. Many sales with multimillion-dollar price tags took place, but later research revealed that, in many cases, the seller and buyer were the same person moving NFTs between their own wallets. This created the illusion of high demand, enticing real buyers to jump in. Even though blockchain is transparent and every transaction is traceable, the overall picture can still be deceptive.
⚫️ There are plenty more stories like these, leading to one clear takeaway: be cautious with statistics—especially when they’re being used to sell you something. If you’re relying on such numbers for important decisions, make sure you understand what’s truly behind them.
⌨️ This principle applies not just to TON but to the entire crypto world—and beyond. The phrase “deceptive number” comes from the title of a well-known late-Soviet article, which showed how statistics were sometimes manipulated to present wishful thinking as reality.
@thedailyton
⚫️ A developer from DeDust.io noticed an unexpectedly high trading volume on the TONCO exchange. After investigating, he discovered that most of this volume was generated by arbitrage bots. Technically, the number was correct, but without proper context, it could paint a misleading picture.
⚫️ This isn’t the only case of “deceptive numbers” in TON. For example, when the “Open League” awarded prizes based on transaction volume, some users figured out they could swap funds in stablecoin pairs with minimal losses—repeating the process back and forth many times. This artificially inflated their transaction volume, even though they ended up with the same assets they started with. The tactic served no practical purpose other than gaming the system.
⚫️ A third example from the crypto world predates TON’s rise and occurred at the height of the NFT boom. Many sales with multimillion-dollar price tags took place, but later research revealed that, in many cases, the seller and buyer were the same person moving NFTs between their own wallets. This created the illusion of high demand, enticing real buyers to jump in. Even though blockchain is transparent and every transaction is traceable, the overall picture can still be deceptive.
⚫️ There are plenty more stories like these, leading to one clear takeaway: be cautious with statistics—especially when they’re being used to sell you something. If you’re relying on such numbers for important decisions, make sure you understand what’s truly behind them.
⌨️ This principle applies not just to TON but to the entire crypto world—and beyond. The phrase “deceptive number” comes from the title of a well-known late-Soviet article, which showed how statistics were sometimes manipulated to present wishful thinking as reality.
@thedailyton