Best TruStories of the Week - #11


Claim: Binance just launched a test-net for a new exchange which is a DEX (Decentralised Exchange)


My Stake: Challenge Claim (100 CRED)


DEX Definition: An exchange with no central point where technology is stored, run or managed. Even if the exchange is non-custodial, having central teams or servers is not a DEX.

Having understood the definition, let’s come to the Binance DEX.

  1. The DEX charges listing fees of $100,000. Apparently to prevent scam tokens. However, if a DEX charges listing fees, it shows it has central management.
  2. There are only 11 validator nodes which are all owned by Binance initially. Even though, they will open it up gradually, they will still have most influence. Binance owns nearly 50% of BNB in circulation and 67% including the promoters. Source

So, calling this new Binance exchange a Non-custodial exchange works. However, it is not a DEX.


On page 19/20 of Moolyacoin’s Lite Paper, they note using OpenZeppelin/zeppelin-solidity and I saw this in the comments of the code, so I was wondering, at first, how things went wrong. Especially since they state it was audited three times.

And, It occurred to me that the customized code, ~39 - 42 lines in this case, could have been added after the audits, before deploying the contact. They also don’t provide details on who did the audits.

What’s really unfortunate is that this isn’t an isolated case. I hope things get better.


Oh boy. That’s very shady business.


Thanks for correcting my flagrant mistake!

Post was published on 27th 11:11 IST and was indeed about the strike and not the counter-strike, which happened after the post. Cheers for picking up my fakestory :slight_smile:


Claim: Google ends cryptocurrency ad ban

Category: Regulation

Source: Techradar, article by Mike Moore

My Stake: Challenge claim 50 cred

June 2018, Google officially implemented its ban on ads for cryptocurrencies and cryptocurrency-related products and services. This is documented in their financial services policy (source). A few months later, Google made adjustments in this policy; however, the ban was not 100% lifted. Currently, the following ads are not allowed (source):

  • Ads for initial coin offerings, cryptocurrency token sales, or otherwise promoting the purchase, sale, or trade of cryptocurrencies or related products (Ads for cryptocurrency exchanges are allowed in following countries: Japan, United States).

  • Ad destinations that aggregate or compare issuers of cryptocurrencies or related products.

I’m challenging this claim because it’s somewhat misleading as the ban clearly was not fully lifted. If the wording of the claim was, “Google adjusts policy on advertising regarding cryptocurrencies and related products and services” or a variant thereof, I’d black the claim.


Claim: XRP violates Coinbase’s own Digital Asset listing framework because Ripple holds nearly 60% of XRP

Category: Exchanges


My Stake: Backed with 100 Cred

My Argument/Evidence:

Coinbase digital asset framework they used to evaluate before new assets are listed as per digital-asset-framework-2017-11 document. I have highlighted the Team Ownership clause which states “The ownership stake retained by the team is a minority stake.”

As per coinmarketcap, Total Supply of XRP is 99,991,689,289 approximately 100 billion (

Ripple is already in process of placing 55 billion XRP in escrow account and locking it. This is evident from Ripple’s blog (

So based on these evidence, it is clear that Coinbase has in fact violated their digital asset framework for listing a new asset.


Claim: The stem cells will use this man-made scaffold as a guide to grow in the right way. They use it both as a physical ground to attach themselves and as a guide.


Category: Biology

My stake: [50 cred]back

My Evidence:

The claim “The stem cells will use this man-made scaffold(1) as a guide to grow(2) in the right way(3).” has the following sub-claims that need to validated.

  1. Growth based on scaffolds is the only basis/technique behind 3D- printing organs.
  2. Stem cells can develop into a specific cell type in an adult person, from brain tissue to muscle to bone depending on the scaffold.
  3. There are limited or no side effects to such growth using scaffolds.

1.1 Growth based on scaffolds is the only basis/technique behind 3D- printing organs

3D printing allows for the layer-by-layer construction of a particular organ structure to form a cell scaffold. Source: Wiki

This illustrates that scaffolding is the primary technique used in 3D printing organs to combine a set of layers to construct the organ and thus validating the sub-claim and the claim that “The stem cells will use this man-made scaffold as a guide to grow in the right way”

1.2. Stem cells can develop into a specific cell type in an adult person, from brain tissue to muscle to bone depending on the scaffold.

The underlying principle behind Tissue Engineering is as follows:

Scaffolds mimic the extracellular matrix of the native tissue, recapitulating the in vivo milieu and allowing cells to influence their own microenvironments. They usually serve for at least one of the following purposes: allow cell attachment and migration(1), deliver and retain cells and biochemical factors(2), enable diffusion of vital cell nutrients and expressed products(3), exert certain mechanical and biological influences to modify the behaviour of the cell phase(4). Source

A combination of purposes 1 and 4 validates with the following classification of stem cells validates the subclaim:

There are two kinds of stem cells: Adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells.

An adult stem cell is thought to be an undifferentiated cell, found among differentiated cells in a tissue or organ. The adult stem cell can renew itself and can differentiate to yield some or all of the major specialized cell types of the tissue or organ. The primary roles of adult stem cells in a living organism are to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found. Source

Adult stem cells cannot be grown easily in vitro and are thought to have a limited replicative capacity. Embryonic stem cells (ESCs), derived from the embryos, on the other hand, are renowned for their ability to divide indefinitely and their capacity to differentiate into most, if not all, of the tissues of the body. Source

Thus, embryonic cells can grow into specific cell types through tissue engineering and thus validates the sub-claim and the claim that “The stem cells will use this man-made scaffold as a guide to grow in the right way”

1.3 There are limited or no side effects to such growth using scaffolds.

Source: The scaffold provides the environment. The cell will meet another cell growing in another part of the scaffold or the scaffold itself. And they will "know" if they have to duplicate again or stop.

Making a scaffold is complex. There is still research going on about the best material for scaffolds. But of the lot, biomaterials chosen for scaffolding are usually based on:

(I) Biocompatibility: Cells must adhere, function normally, and migrate onto the surface and eventually through the scaffold and begin to proliferate before laying down new matrix. After implantation, the scaffold or tissue engineered construct must elicit a negligible immune reaction in order to prevent it causing such a severe inflammatory response that it might reduce healing or cause rejection by the body.

(ii) Biodegradability: The objective of tissue engineering is to allow the body’s own cells, over time, to eventually replace the implanted scaffold or tissue engineered construct. Scaffolds and constructs, are not intended as permanent implants. The scaffold must therefore be biodegradable so as to allow cells to produce their own extracellular matrix. The by-products of this degradation should also be non-toxic and able to able to exit the body without interference with other organs.

(III) Mechanical properties

(IV) Scaffold architecture

Points (I) and (II) are considered in design to support the hypothesis behind the sub-claim and claim that “The stem cells will use this man-made scaffold as a guide to grow in the right way


I definitely agree that a bigger survey pool would result in more accurate results, unfortunately after digging deeper I couldn’t find any other sources with a wider consumer base. Almost all the other sources I’ve found references back to lendedu’s survey.


Claim: HPV vaccine benefits women who don’t get it.


Category: Biology

My stake: 50 Cred (back)

This claim can be analyzed in two ways and then an eventual conclusion.

  1. Statistics that can support/refute the claim based on available data.
  2. Tracing the fundamental reasoning behind the claim and analyzing to validate it.

Statistics approach

The article from which the claim was taken states the following:

Among vaccinated women, the prevalence of HPV dropped by 81 percent: from 35 percent to 6.7 percent.

While for patients who remained unvaccinated: At the outset, about one-third tested positive for those viral strains, and that figure dropped to 19.4 percent over time. A decline by 42 percent.

Within the sample space, the data states that although the decline is visible on both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, the chances of testing higher still remains high for unvaccinated patients.

  1. The article also goes on to talk about ‘herd immunity’; i.e As the prevalence of an infection goes down, the overall risk of contracting it goes down. As more and more people get vaccinated, the probability of the infection spreading gets reduced.And thus, the probability of the infection reaching the unvaccinated reduces. This does not mean that the unvaccinated will have the same protection as a vaccinated individual.

While the claim holds true, it doesn’t mean that herd immunity will offer more or equal protection as compared to vaccination.

Edit: These arguments can be validated from the original paper published by the researchers at the institute. Thanks @preethi


Claim: Committing code to a specific address before deployment is possible with CREATE opcode.


Category: Ethereum

My stake: 100 Cred (back)

The CREATE2 opcode is going to be introduced with the Constantinople hard-fork, and has created some buzz within the developer community. Most people are happy with this addition, some even praising it as a breakthrough that has the potential to greatly reduce friction in user-onboarding (

The reason for this is because CREATE2 enables you to know the address of a contract before it is deployed, and therefore you can start creating offchain transactions on a contract before spending any gas to deploy it. Or at least, so they say.

One person in particular heavily questioned the necessity of this new opcode, however. The writer for the blog post that I mentioned as source for this claim, seems to imply that the promises of CREATE2 is already possible with the current CREATE.

I ran some code samples to verify:

This is a smart contract that simply creates a new contract, and emits an event with the new contracts address. In the log output, you can see that the address is 0x756A34FcDc70fb28Fcc0f54A89Ce10F7F5802979

Here, I’m running a simple javascript program that runs the same algorithm as CREATE. You can see that the resulting address depends on the source entity’s address and the transaction nonce. The resulting address is the same as the one in the other example, which means that we could easily check beforehand what address the new contract would have.

A side note is that while the guy criticizing CREATE2 is correct, he and most other sources seem to be missing the point. The novel part of CREATE2 is not to be able to know the deployed contracts address pre-deployment (the blockchain is fundamentally deterministic anyway, so shouldn’t be surprising), it is to be able to do so without depending on the state of the deploying entity (i.e. the transaction nonce).

EDIT: Another benefit of CREATE2 is that it allows for offline verification of contract code, since the contract address would be generated from the source address and contract bytecode.


It looks like you used the source itself as evidence? I don’t think this is good enough evidence to say that we can confirm or reject this claim. Are there alternate pieces of evidence to support this original source?


Claim: Polkadot does not have permissionless innovation unlike Ethereum since to add a parachain, one is at the mercy of dot holders.

Category: Ethereum, Polkadot, Scaling


My Argument / Evidence:

There are 2 subclaims to this claim:

  1. To add a parachain in Polkadot, one is at the mercy of dot holders
  2. Polkadot parachains are comparable to Ethereum Dapps

Subclaim 1:

  • To add a parachain in Polkadot, one is at the mercy of dot holders. This is true.
    This is confirmed from Polkadot light paper.

  • Reddit user, web3jp, adds that the initial cost of adding parachain would be free, and later would require DOT holders to stake through the governance process.

  • As a sidenote, 30% of the DOT tokens are held by the web3 foundation, so the web3 foundation will have a large influence in deciding which parachains are added.

Subclaim 2:

  • Polkadot parachains are comparable to Ethereum Dapps. This is an apples-to-oranges comparison for 2 reasons: 1) Polkadot is a network of blockchains, whereas Ethereum is a single blockchain (until Serenity is live) and 2) Deploying a Dapp on ETH network is permissionless whereas one has to stake enough DOT tokens to have a parachain slot in Polkadot.

  • But for the sake of the argument, let’s explore the comparison of dapps on Ethereum to parachains on Polkadot.
    Cost comparison, Ethereum gas cost to maintain a Dapp (vs) Cost to maintain a parachain slot on Polkadot :
    An approximate cost for maintaining a Dapp per year : ~90 ETH ~ 12,163.50 $ (as of today)
    Cost to maintain a parachain slot on Polkadot : ~tens of thousands of $ from the same Reddit post.

  • A more apt comparison would be comparing Ethereum shards (not Dapps) to parachains (or even better cosmos zones of Cosmos to parachains of Polkadot).This is because with sharding, Ethereum would become multiple blockchains rather than a single blockchain.
    But the analogy becomes shaky because sharding is used to deploy Dapps on the Ethereum blockchain whereas parachains are used to deploy sovereign Dapps through Polkadot.

My Stake:

  • Back SubClaim (100 TruStake)
  • Challenge SubClaim (75 TruStake)


thanks for digging in. I agree with your analysis on subclaim #1. But I disagree with your analysis on subclaim #2:

While I see where you’re going with the shards comparison, I don’t think shards are comparable to parachains. Sharding is just a way to split up the load across many blockchains that are still tied to one underlying blockchain. Which is very differentt from a parachain (i.e. a sovereign chain). I actually think Daaps vs. Parachains is still the right comparison (because both are used to build apps).

Would you still disagree? @Srikanth


Apologies. True that. I forgot to add the original paper published as the authentic source. Added it as an edit now.


Claim: The Tesla Model 3 has the lowest probability of occupant injury of any car ever tested by The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Sources: via @priyatham

Category: Electric Vehicles
My Stake: Back with 50 TS
My Argument / Evidence:

The NHTSA has a 5-Star Safety ratings program that evaluates how vehicles perform in crashes. The tests come in four big categories: Frontal, Side Barrier, Side Pole, and Rollover. These tests were developed “because these types [of crashes] account for the majority of crashes on America’s roadways” The NHTSA also indicates if vehicles have driver assist safety features such as automatic emergency braking, rear cameras, lane assist, collision warning and more.

All three Tesla models (S, X and 3) received the full 5 stars in all categories and subcategories.

Screenshot of the Model 3’s Rollover Safety score on the via the NHTSA

Graph created by Tesla showing vehicle model’s ranked by probability of occupant injury in a crash. Tesla takes the 3 top spots (other vehicles go unnamed).

Although all Tesla models achieved the top rating of 5-Stars, the NHTSA has stated that:

“NHTSA does not distinguish safety performance beyond the star rating with five stars being the highest safety rating a vehicle can achieve. Thus, there is no NHTSA ‘safest’ ranking within the five-star category.” Reuters

It looks like the injury probability being touted by Tesla is not solely based on the NHTSA report but rather a combination of that with their own internal simulation tests and projections. However, on the sales page of the Model 3, the safety claim is worded more accurately.

Since the injury probability rate does not come solely from the NHTSA (or another third party), it is hard to definitively prove/disprove that the Model 3 has the lowest probability of injury. That being said, if I have to put my TruStake where my mouth is, I would back this. Here’s why:

An electric car allows for injury reducing design decisions that are not available to cars with internal combustion engines (ICE). This includes placing the heaviest part of the car, the battery pack under the floor in a big spread out slab that gives the car a low center of gravity. This makes the car handle better around turns - preventing some crashes, and also makes it less likely to roll over in a crash.

The low center of gravity also helps what is called in the auto industry ‘polar moment of inertia.’ A simple way to understand the safety relevance of this metric is to imagine a dumbbell striking a pole. The weight distribution at the extremes will cause the dumbbell to wrap around the pole. This is, roughly speaking, the weight distribution of an ICE vehicle – heavy in the front and back compared to the center. In a Tesla, the weight is more evenly distributed. If the car hit a pole sideways the main mass of the car would be slowed by the pole and the relatively lightweight front and back of the car would not have the inertia to cause the car to wrap around it.

Screenshot of Side Pole crash test video of a Tesla Model 3 compared to a Lexus ES 350

Full video here

As CleanTechnica elaborates:

The next difference in the Tesla architecture [from ICE vehicles] is a combination of a “strong, rigid passenger compartment,” a “fortified battery pack,” and the before mentioned low center of gravity. These pieces combine to do 3 things very effectively:

  1. Prevent whatever is hitting the car from entering the passenger cabin.
  2. Keep the car right side up.
  3. Distribute the crash forces away from the cabin.
    Just one example of this is the design of the frunk (front trunk). Since there is no engine (the electric motor is located between the rear axle), the entire front end of the car is basically empty. It designed to crumple and absorb impact.

Tesla Model 3 frunk designed to absorb impact

There are also all the crash prevention features such as collision avoidance (car automatically swears out of the way), automatic emergency braking, advanced front and side airbags, 8 cameras, 12 ultrasonic sensors and forward-facing radar that alert the driver of impending danger. The existence of these preventative features is indicated by the NHTSA, but they are not included in the safety score.

With all these points in mind, I will back this claim with 50 TruStake.


Claim: Binance moves more Bitcoin in a day than Square did in all of 2018.

Category: Bitcoin


My Argument/Evidence:

First, I saw how much Bitcoin “movement” happened on Square in 2018. Because the only Bitcoin transactions on Square are Bitcoin purchases (no trading) Square “movement,” I measured movement on Square as revenue. I looked at Square’s 10K annual report and saw that their Bitcoin revenue for 2018 was $166 million.

Next, I saw how much Bitcoin “movement” happened on Binance. The amount of Bitcoin traded daily on Binance fluctuates. In the article, Messamore states that Binance moves more Bitcoin than Square on a “busy day.” So if we take a day from the months of November to January in which there was a crypto craze, we can validate this claim.

However, this isn’t true for the present day Bitcoin volume on Binance as there is approximately only $100 million in volume.

I grabbed the volume data from CoinMarket on January 24, 2018 because Messamore used 2018 for the comparison and I wanted consistency with a busy day of the year. The total trading volume day then was $390 million as shown below, which stands true to Messamore’s claims.


Claim: Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) DLT is a more recent solution that offers the benefits of blockchain (claim 1) with better performance (Claim 2).


Category: Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT)

My Stake:

Claim 1: Challenge with 50 Cred

Claim 2: Back with 5 Cred


Definition: What is a DAG?

Another form of Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) that uses a directed graph instead of a chain of blocks as data structure.

(Visualization of DAG:

Prominent Projects involved in DAG include IOTA, Nano, Byteball.

How does DAG work?

Each new transaction confirms one or several previous transactions (parent), by signing their parent’s hashes and including their parents in its composition. See this article. (In other words, the success of current transaction relies on future transactions to validate it.)

Claim 1: Offers the benefits of blockchain.

The benefits of blockchain now are mainly decentralization (A) and immutability (B).

A. Decentralization:

The idea of decentralization is having distributed network participants to agree on the truth state of ledger. A good article from Lior Yaffe, however, pointed out some potential flaws of DAG achieving state synchronization among all nodes.

His arguments (quotes from article) mainly include:

  • Single coordinator node: IOTA currently relies on a single coordinator node while Byteball relies on 12 witness nodes all controlled by the developer himself to checkpoint the state of the DAG.
  • Latency of transaction propagation: Simply put, the blockchain state is modified by every block while the DAG state is modified by every transaction. If a node lags 1 second with 1000 TPS, this node is almost certain to not be able to process some of the transactions immediately because of missing 1000 approved transactions.

In summary, is DAG really achieving decentralization having to need coordinator nodes? Also, is this decentralization robust when it may face immense difficulty for nodes to synchronize state?

B. Immutability:

Similar to blockchain logic where each new block refers to previous block hash.

In a directed acyclic structure, the links point in the same direction with earlier transactions linked to later transactions (aka directed); information cannot return to the original node without passing through other subsequent nodes first (aka acyclic).

However, according to IOTA’s own blog post, it seems that there’s security issues with IOTA tangle (a kind of DAG), regarding a parasite chain attack as an attempt to double spend funds in the tangle. (This can be further verified by my personal chat with IOTA Foundation Lewis Friedberg [during USC Blockathon :)] that the IOTA network is under frequent attack everyday.)

Therefore, it seems that the immutability nature of DAG isn’t proven yet. It will take time.

Claim 2: DAGS have better performance (higher throughput) than blockchains.

We can infer that better performance here refers to higher scalability. The inherent nature of DAG is the higher the volume of transactions, the faster each transaction get validated (because current transaction relies on future transactions to validate it).

In a chain, time takes to traverse blockchain = O(n)

In a graph, time takes to traverse graph = O(LOGn)

^This is big difference for large chains.

Use cases:

Stated by Lior Yaffe, a potential DAG problem is possible order differences. A blockchain is sensitive to order of blocks, but DAG, having a large number of simultaneous transactions, has no sensitivity to order of transactions.

This poses application limitation to use cases where ordering matters. On the flip side, it makes sense that IOTA is using DAG for IoT sensor data because for the most part, the data volume is huge but ordering doesn’t matter. Yet, for applications that involve usage of high value data-content (e.g. financial transactions), blockchain is a much better alternative.

Therefore, to say DAG has better performance, it has to depend on the use cases. In general, DAG has higher scalability than blockchain for now.


So so good! Thanks @eddyso


Claim : If an attacker has more computing power than 34% of the IOTA network, they can send & approve false transactions taking control of the tangle
Source : Tweet
Category : Security
My stake : Challenged with 100 Cred
My Argument/Evidence :

Questions you need to answer to prove/disprove this claim:

  1. What component is there to currently to prevent situations like these?
  2. How does that component work to ensure prevention of that attack?
  3. Is there a mechanism to handle misbehavior of that component?

IOTA is at a very early stage today! “Given this reality, we have had to employ a safety mechanism to protect users’ funds during this early period. Similar mechanisms have been used in more or less every public DLT, to protect networks in their initial stages. This was certainly the case for Bitcoin, which had hard-coded built-in checkpoints to protect selected blocks from being reversed, as well as an alerts system which was basically a way for Satoshi to shut down the network.”

So this clearly suggests that IOTA is following on similar paths to address concerns as previous chains like Bitcoin. They have a component called the Coordinator.

What is the Coordinator (‘Coo’)?

The coordinator exists to prevent double spends, while the network does not contain enough hashing power to be intrinsically secure. It is essentially training wheels for the network until the amount of organic activity on the ledger is sufficient to where it can evolve unassisted, at which point the Coo is permanently shut off.

How does Coordinator make sure that the 34% attack cannot happen?

Periodically, Coo (which is run by the IOTA Foundation) issues a normal signed transaction. These transactions are called milestones. IOTA’s definition of consensus is then very straightforward: a transaction is confirmed if and only if it is referenced (either directly or indirectly) by a milestone. It is Coo’s job to make sure a milestone does not contradict its predecessors.

How does the rest of the network make sure that the Coordinator is not breaking rules?

If Coo issues an invalid milestone, by referencing transactions which double spend or access non-existent funds, the rest of the nodes in the network will not accept it. This means that even if Coo messes up, no funds are lost and no transactions are reversed.

Note that currently, IOTA Foundation sees this Component called the Coordinator as a temporary component and are doing ongoing research into different ways to handle security in a tangle without the Coordinator. But for now, with checkpoints that have been enforced using the Coordinator, there is no reason to believe that the IOTA tangle is not secure against the 34% attack.

All the above details are references from official IOTA Foundation published articles.

A more detailed read on the exact similar questions mentioned above. Stackexchange


I now agree that dapps vs parachains is a better comparison with the reasoning below.

  • I am a very beginner about sharding and came across that it is possible for a given shard to have it’s own transaction history and the effect of transactions in some shard k are limited to the state of shard k.
  • I also read that ETH after sharding basically simulates blockchain of (underlying) blockchains. Quoting the same below from here.

The Serenity sharding implementation assumes that each shard manages separate accounts and is processing different transactions, each building their own blockchain, meaning that it has both state and transaction sharding.

The above two points were my basis in comparing parachains to shards in my earlier post (say, in an architectural sense?)which seems flawed now as I’m reading this post about Sharding after your argument.

Sharding will exist exclusively at the protocol layer and will not be exposed to developers. The Ethereum state system will continue to look as it currently does, but the protocol will have a built-in system that creates shards, balances state across shards, gets rid of shards that are too small, and more. This will all be done behind the scenes, allowing devs to continue their current workflow on Ethereum.

I agree that comparing dapps vs parachains is a better comparison than shards vs parachains, Makes sense to me now from deployment perspective(application layer) like you mentioned.

On a whole, even though (Eth dapps vs parachains) is not as directly comparable as (cosmos zones vs parachains), I agree that it makes a good point (to compare) for one to decide whether to build and deploy on Polkadot vs Cosmos vs Eth (vs Eos, Tron) by comparing security vs total cost vs number of transactions vs level of sovereignty vs ease of development etc .

I found a related blog post on the same here.