Jump to content

xToadz + O1 + Ad Owl +Ape FTSOs accused of collusion


Gringo

Recommended Posts

Twitter handle @King_phil_3 has presented evidence of collusion between four FTSOs providers, namely:

* sToadz FTSO ( 0x879Fb0b354733674FD403286eBb2eB17EF97E5Ae )

* O1 FTSO ( 0x229458a754cd1aeba8a0c87f59e22777d593b85a )

* Ad Owl FTSO ( 0xad6f97449d5d7c6c191b58792137e6204bd0538f )

*  "Ape FTSO"

image.png.469519e48283aff7aa0f062f9356b68a.png

The evidence was uploaded by  @King_phil_3 to google docs:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1k9TUNSUEIjyLt90nZdnZ2x4W_xhGHo3tcdRW_u231L0/edit#gid=0

The four FTSOs aparently share the same Bitrue account. Not only collusion affects the data integrity of the network but also create sell pressure as they are selling most of the (extra) rewards.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Ok, now the vote power cap has been reduced to 2.5%. Epoch 68 has started and the "Availability 6h" of the top 4 providers is reported 57.50%.

Should this be taken as a posible indication that those 4 share somehow the same infrastructure?

 

image.thumb.png.80ec60e39ccb4a7101aa5b1be104993a.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, Gringo said:

Ok, now the vote power cap has been reduced to 2.5%. Epoch 68 has started and the "Availability 6h" of the top 4 providers is reported 57.50%.

Should this be taken as a posible indication that those 4 share somehow the same infrastructure?

 

image.thumb.png.80ec60e39ccb4a7101aa5b1be104993a.png

I think that's a fair assumption...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gringo said:

Ok, now the vote power cap has been reduced to 2.5%. Epoch 68 has started and the "Availability 6h" of the top 4 providers is reported 57.50%.

Should this be taken as a posible indication that those 4 share somehow the same infrastructure?

 

image.thumb.png.80ec60e39ccb4a7101aa5b1be104993a.png

No. The “Availability” is displaying wrong. There’s an update due out soon, which will fix this.

The site has been fully rebuilt, so you can expect some other improvements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Did the accused colluders ever give any evidence that they weren't, in fact, colluding,

I don't think so. Also I don't see how reducing the vote cap from 10% to 2.5% can help against collusion. If an independent FTSO was a good participant and somehow "deserved" a 10% vote cap, now is reduced to 2.5%. But what stop a participant in a collusion scheme to provide 4 FTSO's with a 2.5% cap coordinated with their former friends? Maybe they will expand their influence over the network and maybe it will be more difficult to identify them?

I fail to see how reducing the vote cap helps to fight collusion. :dthinking:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...