Gringo Posted September 18, 2022 Share Posted September 18, 2022 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" 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. ftso_au, Seoulite, RambeauTeasebox and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seoulite Posted September 19, 2022 Share Posted September 19, 2022 Gringo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted September 20, 2022 Author Share Posted September 20, 2022 An update: Seoulite 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted January 7 Author Share Posted January 7 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RambeauTeasebox Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 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? I think that's a fair assumption... Gringo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftso_au Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 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? 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. henne111 and PlanK 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RambeauTeasebox Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 Was the collusion issue ever settled? Did the accused colluders ever give any evidence that they weren't, in fact, colluding, beyond the explanation that I remember was something like, "Oh, we all decided to share the same Bitrue deposit address cuz we're all best friends, no big deal..."? Gringo and BillyOckham 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted January 8 Author Share Posted January 8 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts