The trick to wash trading on CoinBase is (or was) to be on the inside:
> The order also finds that over a six-week period—August through September 2016—a former Coinbase employee used a manipulative or deceptive device by intentionally placing buy and sell orders in the Litecoin/Bitcoin trading pair on GDAX that matched each other as wash trades. This created the misleading appearance of liquidity and trading interest in Litecoin.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the wash trading on these unregulated exchanges followed a similar pattern where insiders were largely using the system to their advantage and using their insider knowledge or connections to (try to) hide it.
Sure, although not part of the period covered by this paper:
> Our data cover the period from 00:00 July 09th, 2019 (when TokenInsight started to collect transaction information from these exchanges) to 23:59 November 03rd, 2019 (the time we wrote the first draft).
I imagine the fraudulent schemes have also come a long way since 2016.
Given the volume of trading that happens on unregulated exchanges, I don’t see why anyone would think the amount of fraud has been decreasing as unregulated activity is increasing.
Too bad neither the title of this HN submission nor the title of the paper says "Crypto Wash Trading on unregulated exchanges", but I guess that wouldn't write as many headlines.
I'd argue that the original article's title was fine; they were indeed looking for wash trading across all the crypto exchanges. The second sentence of the abstract was basically, "Trading activity on regulated exchanges looks fine, but the unregulated ones are a hot mess."
It's just the altered title for the HN submission that is actively misleading.
Yes, but I think the person you are responding to has a good point: it should be in the headline, as adding one more word ("unregulated") is a pretty significant distinction.
When the title just says "70% of the volume in the top crypto exchanges", perhaps you can forgive the skim-readers of the world for believing they meant "top crypto exchanges", as stated, rather than "top unregulated changes".
Sometimes it's nice for the title to honestly represent what the paper/blog/whatever is about without having to dive into the abstract.
I think there might even be some word for having titles which somewhat misrepresent the piece in question, often used when the title elicits more clicks by leaving out a key piece of information.
Coinbase isn’t one of the unregulated exchanges.