Webacy and iEthereum (update)

I am publishing a correction to this article on November 14th. I have updated this article at the very end. Thank you Webacy for making the observation and correction to your analysis of iEthereum in short order.

These types of articles are hard to write but necessary to keep my biases and the readers biases of this blog in check. It allows me to really check myself.

So let me be clear again; we do not know what iEthereum is all about. We talk about it because nobody else is. As it should be! At this point 7 years after creation and listed on all the major index sites; not a peep from the greater crypto market.

This will be another article that documents, gets published and then archived into history; the constraints and adversity that iEthereum will have gone through. Will it be a success story or another failure. We will see.

With that said, lets talk about it. It is important to have the readership see both sides of the story.

I recently came across this web3 analysis service called Webacy. This is a new service that I came across on Etherscan.io under the cards tab.

To say the least, I was disheartened by the summary listed for iEthereum. A little wind out of my sail. This is where we need to critically think.

Honest question, can these web analytic services be held liable for damages for their published findings. I understand that they are running algorithms that determine their proprietary grading scale. And the results are the results. Or do they just become obsolete as being a useful service if they become proven to have published fraudulent data? I think we will see the answers to these questions as time goes by.

Should we hold Etherscan responsible for providing a 3rd party analytics company that is reporting false information or should that responsibility fall on Webacy? Should any responsibility be fallen upon outside of the users? Or should responsibility be fallen upon the users and investors themselves?

I have my thoughts and opinions.

The way the Webacy summary is published is patently false. Anybody that researches iEthereum and comes across this summary probably will not purchase any iEthereum. This could be determined in the future as having caused damages, to either potential or current investors.

This is a good example to all those that are new to crypto, how powerful entities are able to centralize and control over time. This is the antithesis of what we want to see happen in the crypto market. Powerful entities picking winners and losers, verses the market choosing.

What I hope to provide today is circumstantial evidence that Webacy and perhaps Etherscan is playing its role in constraining iEthereum from being noticed or adopted by the public. All I want is to have a conversation.

Webacy analysis of iEthereum states that iEthereum is a fake token and scores a 100 in the risk assessment. This is a mis-representation on its face. If Webacy is able to provide an analysis via its proprietary technology , then it is a legitimate Ethereum contract that can be data scraped and scanned. This means that it is not a fake. It may not prove that its good, bad, safe, fraudulent, useful or anything else token , but its a real token, it is not fake. I might also add that its a real token with 7 years of transactions and transfer and flawless uptime. It is not fake nor does it score a 100, being a sever risk, on any serious or competent risk analysis based on its track record.

So perhaps, Webacy, needs to change its label for its assessment from “fake” to something else. To determine this; lets take a look at what they define “fake as being.

According to Webacy, a "fake token" is defined as an asset that is an unauthentic knockoff for an existing project. Be extra cautious not to confuse this with your real tokens.

As a web3 analytical service company it should know that their is very little innovation or differentiation amongst any cryptos. I am not stating that there isn’t differentiation , I am just stating that all cryptos essentially begin with and/or share the same code, especially when we are speaking in terms of Ethereum based ERC20 tokens.

iEthereum was created and deployed using the Consensys Token Factory, which uses the basic Human Standard Token contract like 17, 414 other tokens do. For the readers, the HumanStandardToken is simple. It is also where the genius lies; the more lines of code that is added to any contract, the slower it becomes and the more potential attack vectors that become. The Human Standard Token, ie iEthereum is a standard in which I believe will become more and more popular as more and more complex projects attempt to become more advanced. People want simplicity. iEthereum, ie the Human Standard Token is a simple peer to peer value transfer technology that is more interoperable and safe because of the standard in which it resides.

So to be clear, iEthereum is not “an unauthentic knockoff.” It is an open sourced MIT Licensed project that was created to have a simple, risk free and interoperable level of quality or attainment of code used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations; ie a standard. Each token created within the factory differentiates itself through ticker symbol, supply tokenomics and other optional functionality.

Webacy Safety Score analysis has a gradable score of 0-100. 0 being the most safe and 100 being the most severe of risks. Webacy scores iEthereum with an overall risk score of 100. This is laughable, in my opinion.

Webacy has red highlights across the summary analysis: High Risk, Sever Risk, Malicious, Warning, Caution, etc. Nothing that it states that it grades is a real concern. According to Webacy, it aggregates data points from sanctions, hacks, and multi-hop transactions. iEthereum is fully decentralized and has zero sanctions to date. iEthereum has an immutable contract and has had zero hacks. Webacy analysis defines multi-hop transactions as a risk which refers to transactions or interactions that involve multiple steps as a “concern” for money laundering. That has zero to do with iEthereum specifically. Do you blame the dollar for illicit money laundering? Or the parties involved? Additionally, when you have a token that serves the decentralized finance space, you have multi hop transactions. Its just the reality of aggregation platforms and trading bots.

So with these facts presented, is Webacy, being fraudulent, complicit, or naive to the damages that its analysis is presenting.

With that said, Webacy’s conclusions of iEthereum could be accurate in terms of its interpreted findings. For example, our readership is very aware that iEthereum’s use of Apples brand identity and logo could be unauthorized and/or fraudulent. However, this reality has zero mention in its analysis and a correct conclusion does not guarantee that the analysis behind it was sound.

Webacy states that iEthereum is fake and high risk; essentially alluding to iEthereum being fraudulent. This is not new to us. We chose the iEthereum Advocacy Trust as our self organizing collectives name because we knew what we were up against and we needed to be advocates for iEthereum if we wanted to present the opportunity to those that may miss out. So for new readership, iEthereum may or may not turn out to be anything of value to the greater crypto market. This we know. However, we can not disregard the fact that the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston used the original iEthereum whitepaper as a source for their Building an Ethereum Blockchain Proof of Concept whitepaper.

iEthereum may be a lot of things, but it is not fake in our professional opinion. I have presented a lot of evidence to support this claim. It is my opinion that iEthereum is being constrained and manipulated for the right time and place of release to the public awareness. Time will be right when it has real world utility function and not be speculated upon as being the only existence.

I also find that its interesting that on the Etherscan and Webacy summary it has a “thumbs up” icon that has, at time of this writing, 154 likes for the summary that I just provided evidence of the contrary to what its presenting. Etherscan, is a technical page that only experienced web3 navigators would be accustomed to providing input. Why hasn’t any of these 154 experienced web3 navigators provided one post on their social media to proclaim that iEthereum is fraudulent, to warn others? To me, It looks very much like bot activity that provides an illusion that iEthereum should not be invested in if you are a newcomer and are doing your basic iEthereum research. This entire iEtherum history has been one big psychological operation. Why spend this much time and effort to constrain?

I submitted the iEthereum code to Venice.AI and asked if it agrees, yes or no, that iEthereum is genius. It responded, “The ERC20 token code you provided is simple and genius in its design……the human standard token is a testament to the power of simplicity and standardizations in the development of blockchain technology and its impact on the cryptocurrency and decentralized finance industries cannot be overstated.”

The story of iEthereum is unfolding in the shadows, constrained by forces that seem intent on dismissing or hiding its potential. Despite the misleading claims of platforms like Webacy, iEthereum’s record of transparency and functionality remains clear. This article joins a growing archive that documents iEthereum’s journey through skepticism and misrepresentation, preserved so that readers may one day judge it fairly. As Web3 matures, we must call for accurate, responsible analytics that inform rather than obstruct. By advocating for fair analysis and confronting these biases, we aim to keep the door open for the real value of iEthereum—and all transparent, decentralized technologies—to be recognized on their merits. To everyone seeking deeper insights, we invite you to explore our previous articles and stay tuned for future developments in the unfolding story of iEthereum.

UPDATE NOVEMBER 14, 2024: For all you iEthereans; Webacy has updated the risk safety score for iEthereum from 100 to 36.74 as you can see in the image below. It now falls into a moderate to average risk verses severe. I believe this is a fair assessment for where iEthereum is currently at in terms of adoption and maturity. Thank you Webacy.