I’d actually still prefer 10% percent of the 133 address cluster, which we all agreed should be slashed in full as it’s absolutely obvious botting. Would equal a bit less than 400K for me.
For @spadefish, he did enormous work in the past few weeks and the equivalent of 1 Discord Max reward isn’t really fair either to all the things he did when compared to the Discord reward criteria of a few constructive messages.
@ivangbi If we can only get part of the Discord rewards (or funds provided by ex-core) as early task compensation for whatever reason, I’d advise for it to be double, e.g. 500k each for spadefish and I if everyone agrees.
The final list is here on the sheet “Addresses to be slashed”.
I added a column slash_amount that indicates the amount of slashing. As agreed, I set the obvious botter addresses (from @kilpatrick list) to “Remove from distribution completely”. @haitang cluster I set to 3x and all other addresses to 5x.
For the record, case @AliLeymo dodges the bullet here because I didn’t have time to fully parse and analyze the multisender.app data. When someone uses multisender.app or disperse the addresses which were used to test Gearbox are not directly connected with each other, but through the multisender contract (which didn’t test Gearbox, so the connection gets lost in my analysis).
I can’t say I fully agree with the “slashing” coefficients But still I’m very happy that the case can be settled somehow at last, it was really a kinda tiresome and unpleasant case.
Thank you @kilpatrick , @spadefish , and other researchers of course, it’s an amazing and valuable job that you’ve done.
I think we covered the patterns and the general logic Chris mentioned in his thread. There’s always a chance we missed someone that was more cunning, but we did recover a large percentage of the distribution.
I think Hop would’ve benefited if they contacted us. We could’ve shared some of our advanced strats with them. They, in turn, could’ve given some of that 25% finder reward with us!
These rewards were distributed and assigned > 12 months ago, I have no clue why you bring it up so long after. The people who concluded these findings - got their rewards and wanted / can / will / (up to them) share with those who have helped. If they did not - idk, not in control of that. This wasn’t part of the proposal or the terms back then, everyone who helped (a lot or a bit) seemed to have agreed.
I don’t even know what / how much different members contributed. On the surface, those members were the most active documenting all that. So they are like… initiative leaders. Ask them ser.