Talk:SafeMoon

Criticism

Why is the criticism section as large as the rest of the article also? This should be rectified. The sources for that section are few and mainly quote sources that are of no value.

If you can find well-sourced references that say any notable or beneficial things about this token, feel free to add them. I have searched Google News and can find only critical pieces and PR pieces. Miserlou (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Please note, this is Wikipedia - we aim to be as neutral as possible. The criticism here is not considered "FUD" if it is backed up with reliable secondary sources. GR86 (📱) 22:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Article is misleading and not neutral

The article currently has a perspective that comes purely from the creators' marketing. Please add information to make the article more neutral. For example, this is important for every user to know: Developers have a 50% supply and it functions like a pyramid scheme. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/safemoon-dogecoin-ponzi-scheme-150000575.html?guccounter=1 --2001:14BB:A3:702F:5CE8:F532:57BD:C561 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that such concerns may merit inclusion in the article in some form. However, it's worth keeping in mind that the 'criticism' so far has come predominantly from a single individual: Charles-Henry Monchau, the COO of a financial company. The sources that have been used (Yahoo Finance, GreenwichTime, Fortune, Entrepeneur.com, and others) cannot be considered distinct references; they are all identical copies of a very brief article authored by this person. The remaining sources seem to be, essentially, non-notable crypto 'blogs' that cite Twitter posts and commentary from YouTube videos vaguely expressing concern.

I understand that with nascent technology and cryptocurrencies there won't always be high-quality sources readily available immediately, but I think it's important that such a heavy claim be well-cited using reliable sources before it merits inclusion in the article, especially considering the article is relatively undeveloped at this stage. And yes — I absolutely agree it's worth ensuring the article doesn't stray into WP:PROMOTION. It should read like a neutral, disinterested overview of the token, not marketing fluff or an advertisement. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Kindly want to point out, that noone is holding 50% of the supply but the burn wallet. You can look at it here: https://bscscan.com/token/0x8076c74c5e3f5852037f31ff0093eeb8c8add8d3?a=0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000001 As it’s public address is a 0-address, it has not been generated out of a pair of 12 seed words, aka the private key. Thus, there is no way to recover those burns, why thay are called burn. Noone can sell them, because there is not enough computing power on earth, to calculate the private key for that wallet. --94.252.87.201 (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

What to do about this page?

This page is constantly being monitored and whitewashed with marketing language for obvious reasons, which means it's going to be very difficult to maintain over time. What is to be done?

Fundamentally: Is this page notable at all? There have been very few articles about it in reputable news sources, all of which are basically blogspam-tier PR pieces. On the other hand, it will be good to have some publicly available information about this pyramid-scheme/liberating-financial-revolution-in-the-making, as all of the other information about it on the internet are from people who are active participants in the scheme.

What's the WP policy on articles for altcoins/scamcoins? Miserlou (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Compare any similar coin: Shiba Inu or Dogecoin, for instance. Please also keep the one-revert rule in mind, as you can see here regarding crypto: WP:GS/Crypto#1RR. Be mindful of not inserting your own opinion into the article; you might consider it a 'scamcoin', but hunting endlessly for sources that refer to random Twitter posts as evidence is not a standard that merits inclusion on Wikipedia. A number of sources currently in the article are likely to be challenged and removed; random blogposts are no source (regarding Medium.com, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources ("considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert")) -- if we could find any source for this outside of a self-published blog post, that would be good. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly the point - there are basically no notable sources. It _barely_, if at all, meets the notability guidelines, and I'm very liberal on when it comes to WP inclusionism. The best sources which are out there on this topic do contain some heavy criticism, but this page had none of that when I found, and basically read like marketing material. Also, the existence of pages that are also yet to be pruned has nothing to do with the notability of this page and is not relevant to the discussion.

Out of curiosity, do you have a financial interest in this you'd like to disclose? Miserlou (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the article features enough notable sources: The Scotsman, Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, CNBC, The Street, Newsweek, Vice, Express.co.uk, Fortune (magazine), and others. I believe the project meets the general notability guidelines. Many of these sources providing ample criticism of the project - sources far preferable to random blog posts (many, like the Market Realist reference, that merely cite random YouTubers or Twitter posts, or nebulous unnamed 'experts').

Both articles I cited have been well-reviewed, which is why I mention them. If you want an idea for what a criticism section of a cryptocurrency ought to look like, see Dogecoin#Criticism (or even Bitcoin#Analysis - note the brevity). I don't think the article should read like marketing material, but nor should it be almost entirely criticism, especially given the relative poverty of legitimate critical sources.

I don't own any SafeMoon, nor any cryptocurrency except Bitcoin and Ethereum. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I hadn't seen that Vice article before, I guess the celebrity mentions of it are what caused the big initial pump and following media interest. I've added a line about that and reorganized the page a bit, I think it's decent enough now. We'll see if anybody tries to whitewash it in the next few days. Miserlou (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The article is looking a lot better now; significantly more balanced, I would say. I agree with the addition of a separate 'Security' section, as many of the legitimate security concerns I think merit being discussed separately from the other more vague criticisms (e.g. opinionated discussion).

I was tempted to reintroduce some mention of future projects, but I don't think there are enough reliable mainstream sources (excluding perhaps for 'Operation Pheonix' which is already included in the article). The original list enumerating their plans (with a reference only to their website...) was dangerously close to WP:SOAP. It should be removed if reintroduced, in my opinion. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I've also contributed significantly since then, really hard to find anything on this article unless it is of course controversial/ critical subjects. GR86 (📱) 15:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow, that's an outstanding number of additions! I applaud the work. Yeah, finding reliable sources remains a tricky task. Regardless the article is looking a lot better now! GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I would accept the The Cryptocurrency Barnstar as a gift for my contribution lol. GR86 (📱) 15:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Awarded! :D Thanks again. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

Please change

   The token charges a 10% fee on transactions, with 5% redistributed (or reflected) to token holders[6][7] and 5% directed to wallets in a different currency,[8] Binance Token (BNB), controlled by the coin's authors, described as a liquidity pool,[9] to create a "solid price 
   floor and cushion for holders". 

to

   To decrease the supply of SafeMoon the protocol, according to their own whitepaper, “employs 3 simple functions: Reflection + LP (Liquidity Pool) acquisition + Burn-In each trade, the transaction is taxed a 10% fee, which is split 2 ways.
   5% fee = redistributed to all existing holders. A part of that redistribution goes to the burn wallet, which is simply a wallet that takes tokens out of the total supply of SafeMoon forever to increase scarcity which in turn drives up the price.
   5% fee is split 50/50 half of which is sold by the contract into BinanceCoin, while the other half of the SafeMoon tokens are paired automatically with the previously mentioned BinanceCoin and added as a liquidity pair on Pancake Swap.

And also update the following

   SafeMoon has numerous products slated for release in the future:[19]

   cryptocurrency wallet
   cryptocurrency exchange
   hardware wallet

To

   SafeMoon has numerous products slated for release in the future:[19]

   Cryptcurrency Mobilewallet (As of 20th of August, currently in Open Beta. Full release 28th of August 2021)
   Cryptocurrency Exchange (Estimated launch October 2021)
   Blockchain (Estimated launch December 2021)
   Simplex Fiat on-ramp cryptocurrency payment service integration on the software wallet and exchange (Yet to be announced)
   Hardware Cryptocurrency wallet (Estimated launch yet to be announced)
   Cryptocurrency debit card (Estimated release yet to be announced) SerKeKmeisteR (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Most of the changes do not match the sources. Also, to be WP:DUE the information should be covered in reliable secondary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I've taken into consideration these points when making improvements to the article. The cryptocurrency exchange was slated for an October 2021 release but it is now september 2022, with no release? GR86 (📱) 15:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2023

In the presentation box on the right:

1) Remove the "White paper" and Whitepaper URL, as leading to a 404 This page could not be found. error page

2) Remove the "Code repository" and Safemoon.sol Github repo URL, as leading to the SafeMoon V1 codebase. SafeMoon token has migrated to SafeMoon V2 as per the wiki page. OR modify URL to contract code (Github repo for SafeMoon V2 codebase is not public).

3) Modify Developer(s) SafeMoon LLC to SafeMoon US LLC, as per https://safemoon.com/legal/terms . SafeMoon LLC (entity number : 12220004-0160) and SafeMoon US LLC (entity number 12348837-0160) are two distinct companies. DerpyPlatypus (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: 1 and 2 doesn't seems to be true, has done 3. AnnaMankad (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

In Section SafeMoon#Criticisms_and_legal_issues New Level 3 Heading "Liquidity Pool Hack"

On March 29, it was reported that almost $9 million worth of SafeMoon tokens were depleted from Safemoon's liquidity pool after hackers exploited a security flaw in it's smart contracts. As a result the price of the token fell further in value. The hacker agreed to return only 80% ($7 million) of the stolen liquidity after striking a deal with the team to keep $2 million of the stolen tokens. NotSafeAtAll (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Note that neither Zellic.io nor the Business Insider source (which is republished from WP:COINDESK) are reliable sources. I don't know FXLeaders, but it's superficially more reliable than those two. Bleeping Computer is probably fine here. Grayfell (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

removed the top two refs from the passage. NotSafeAtAll (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done: I've added the above section with these two remaining references (in fuller format) to the article, with minor typographical fixes. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

"Paul" is referred to, but no first name appears.

I'm assuming Logan Paul is the subject of the reference, and at some stage a prior reference to him - in full, and linked - was possibly removed in an edit. 2001:8003:3E1A:3001:918E:FD78:2669:E1BD (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2023

Add blue link to StrikeX in the article → StrikeX. Also, a more reliable non-primary source can be found here in place of that mention: https://globalfintechseries.com/blockchain/strikex-make-monumental-announcement-officially-begin-their-journey-to-1-with-a-lamborghini-giveaway/ 185.31.155.11 (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: Wikilink added. Source failed verification as the source does not mention what is written in article. Lightoil (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2023

• New section in Safemoon#History summarising key events of 2023:

(Level 3 Heading) “ 2023: LP hack and Fraud Indictment "

On March 29 2023, hackers exploited a security flaw in the smart contract of SafeMoon’s liquidity pool which saw USD 9 million worth of SFM tokens depleted from SafeMoon's liquidity pool causing a drop in the token’s price. After negotiations with the SafeMoon team, the hacker agreed to return only 80% ($7 million) of the stolen liquidity and kept $2 million of the stolen tokens.

On November 1, 2023, a Federal indictment was unsealed, charging SafeMoon’s CEO Braden John Karony, Token Founder Kyle Nagy, and former SafeMoon employee Thomas Smith with conspiracies involving securities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering in connection with SafeMoon. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleged that the defendants misled SafeMoon investors about the accessibility of 'locked' liquidity and engaged in personal trading. The charges reported that as SafeMoon's market capitalization exceeded $8 billion, they fraudulently diverted millions of dollars from the 'locked' liquidity for personal gain. Karony and Smith were arrested, while Nagy remained at large. The charges were brought by the SEC and the Department of Justice with FBI assistance.

• Add article into category Category:Cryptocurrency scams.

37.110.253.159 (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Done! Begocc (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

References