An Analysis of Crypto Scams during the Covid-19 Pandemic: 2020-2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blockchain and cryptocurrency adoption has increased significantly since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. This adoption rate has overtaken the Internet adoption rate in the 90s and early 2000s, but as a result, the instances of crypto scams have also increased. The types of crypto scams reported are typically giveaway scams, rug pulls, phishing scams, impersonation scams, Ponzi schemes as well as pump and dumps. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reported that in May 2021 the number of crypto scams were twelve times higher than in 2020, and the total loss increased by almost 1000%. The FTC also reported that Americans have lost more than $80 million due to cryptocurrency investment scams from October 2019 to October 2020, with victims between the ages of 20 and 39 represented 44% of the reported cases. Social Media has become the go-to place for scammers where attackers hack pre-existing profiles and ask targets’ contacts for payments in cryptocurrency. In 2020, both Joe Biden and Bill Gates’ Twitter accounts were hacked where the hacker posted tweets promising that for all payments sent to a specified address, double the amount will be returned, and this case of fraud was responsible for $100,000 in losses. A similar scheme using Elon Musk’s Twitter account resulted in losses of nearly $2 million. This paper analyses the most significant blockchain and cryptocurrency scams since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, with the aim of raising awareness and contributing to protection against attacks. Even though the blockchain is a revolutionary technology with numerous benefits, it also poses an international crisis that cannot be ignored.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".