Botting Findings

Did you participate in the early test? Or dis early contribution? If you are not involved in the above, what are you doing now? If the project has no value, will you still do this? This is a good Dao. It’s not Conan in the cartoon. I’m very bored about this. Why don’t you think about how to do token Economics well and how to do marketing instead of doing something worthless here. At least for now, I think it’s a cartoon Conan

I agree with everything here.

Maybe this cluster (haitang’s) can be slashed 2 times, instead of 3 mostly due to haitang’s resilience and the obvious language barrier and timezone difference.

If accepted, it will be a 1-off exception, because haitang and his group have been vocal for a long time. Any new similar requests shouldn’t be considered and all other established slashing criteria should stay the same, in my opinion.

1 Like

Let’s finalize this matter as it becomes a mental burden for @kilpatrick and @spadefish who have done an amazing job so far. There was plenty of time to respond and correct things, and as I see the list of slashed wallets is minimal anyway, so there is no “detrimental” policing or anything, just literal clusters. The goal is not to rob the community at all, but just remove the largest clusters of like 7/10+ wallets. Thank you guys for doing tremendous job! This isn’t part of the DAO work per se because technically speaking it’s a distribution (the entity which existed before the DAO) but we wanted to have community say in it. And imho, it turned out great! So this doesn’t need to go up for voting because it can’t really (nor is there really anything to vote on).

As such, let’s:

  • Cut the clusters by 5 (so if you had to receive 100K tokens you receive 20K). As such, clusters still get a good share of the network and they did the work, but their effect is minimized.
  • As @kilpatrick suggested, haitang’s case case be slashed by 3 only and not 5.
  • The case of @AliLeymo can also be slashed by 3 only, not 5.
  • For the rest, general 5 applies.
  • The sers get a 500,000 GEAR each for the amazing work as a pre-DAO task by ex-core (not DAO distribution), and hope they will now focus on DAO analytics work! There we a few other sers who helped with things but were a bit less active or did like 2-3 replies yet valuable notes - so for those people, it’s up to you @kilpatrick and @spadefish if you wanna share some, because you led this.

Let’s benefit the protocol now, enough policing :slight_smile:

2 Likes

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.

2 Likes

Clear, fair, edited. Imho don’t ask for “everyone agrees” as we will get discussions on a topic that was pre-DAO (so technically speaking it’s pre-DAO business, the last piece of it). Good now?

2 Likes

I’ll share a 100k of my reward between the rest of the less active searchers that have done their own unique analysis and whose found addresses are included in the “Addresses to be slashed sheet”.

2 Likes

Should we get some compensation for our reply and analysis in the post? At least we’re involved? Is this more fair?

Ok lovely! Then please post the final list and let’s call it donezo

Great news @ivangbi! I’m very happy with the proposed reward and will also spread 20k each for @Matteww, @rotorooter , @Dr.Morty , @denden1010102 and @alnash who’s findings or comments I found very helpful.

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).

3 Likes

I can’t say I fully agree with the “slashing” coefficients :rofl: 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.

3 Likes
2 Likes

Well done, Thanks for your effort @kilpatrick , @spadefish. next let’s focus on token model.

2 Likes

great job.

Could you make a separate Gsheet with final Airdrop list

aka address <> number of tokens <> reason of slashing (if applicable)

Sure thing, I will do that during the weekend when I get the chance.

There it is. new_granted_tokens is the column that has the token amount after slashing. original_granted_tokens is the amount that was in the initial list.

5 Likes

does your posted list v2 superseed the one in this topic hopefully?
me normi tester and beta user rn and i am in the v2 (only).

@cocolatee I see your address is in the initial list too, you’ll be fine.

1 Like

Thank you for the work! The numbers have been added & reflected in the claim @mikael is working on.

Meanwhile, the bot discord was also silly, so there was an issue uncovered (ALL GOOD, FIXED) and as such the finder gets a 300,000 GEAR reward. They can make themselves known (chad!) or remain anon.

1 Like

I guess we were among the first to start these things :slight_smile:

Anything you see from their methods / analytics that we didn’t implement? Curious if we got em “all”!

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!

1 Like