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

[Gringo]

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.

 

 

[Seoulite]

 

[Gringo]

An update:
 

 

[Gringo]

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?

 

[RambeauTeasebox]

 

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...

[ftso_au]

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.

[RambeauTeasebox]

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]

 

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.