Botting Findings

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.


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?


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”.


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 data. When someone uses 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 :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.


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


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.


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 @0xmikko 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

@spadefish , hi ) What’s up! What about the reward you promised to share? ))

@RV_ivangbi , hi, what about the drop for botting findings?)))

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.