Proposal: Not Distribute Trading Mining Rewards to Wash Trading Bot in Epoch 0

Thank you rune20! Evidence in the proposal for last hour wash trading is clear enough. We are all waiting for team’s action to do the right thing, to restore the lost faith in the community.

@aimbot69 @Trigger Glad to see you two here, from my proposal! @betel_one in tg chat also seems to have switched camp after the last hour. We all traders should be fighting the one wash trading bot that is stealing from all of us.

1 Like

No matter who it is, he is so certainly that his fee in would get him MCBs out, or in other words, his scores will be included.

All the more to void it right? If the team can turn a blind eye to such blantant wash on such a large scale, I would be more worried that it points to a greater issue (e.g. done by a team member).

I agree with your proposal that we need to take measures, and that decentralization does not mean letting evil go unchecked.

1 Like

Yeah it’s definitely wash trading. we should avoid it in the game.

Just that one more thing to notice, this address is a large holder of MCB, staking 80k MCB. I don’t think he will dump hard on himself.
Just worried that if he doesn’t get the reward, he will act aggressively and dump what he already staked. that would be horrible.

I’m not supporting wash trading either. suggesting makes rules for the following. but for this epoch, be careful with that whale.

1 Like

Team may address on this.

It’s a game of cost & benefits. Now everyone is paying more to get reward. This whale staker paid a lot. so I assume he will do the calculation when dumping. If excluded him, those who get reward with low cost will dump hard IMO. The worst thing I can imagine is the price dump since my token will lock for a while

First making judgment solely on the likelihood of who is going dump is wrong. It’s turning a blind eye to the fact who is doing evil here. If team is concerned about dump, then add a vesting period for all rewards. Simple fix.

Second, even go by your logic, the bot paid less fee to MCB ratio than most of real traders (see details in my proposal), so your argument is false.

So to the bot, this is a direct fee to MCB rewards exchange .

Roughly it looks like this: MCBs = Fee(wash trading incurred) * multiplier

In this case, bot has no reason to stop wash trading until multiplier is <= 1

Real trading involves risk to capital. Statistically you can’t beat the market with the fees paid, that’s how AMM model (or other forms of MM) can make profit in long run.

not a single comment from the team? it seems outcome is already decided. No transparency whatsoever, i’d dump this shit but unfortunately they are staked and locked but i still have some 4-5k left ready to dump

There is couple more days till the distribution of the MCB tokens for epoch 0. I want to give the team benefit of the doubt that they are seriously considering my proposal before making any hasty decision. The data is all on-chain and for them to analyze. I hope I am not disappointed by what the community seems to be agreeing with me on.

Hey Maczombies,

First of all, thank you all for your contribution to the community and ecosystem!

Community members have recently shed some light that several addresses were involved with potential wash trading behaviors just as Epoch 0 ended. After we noticed it, the team started to investigate and provide solutions for dealing with such behaviors.

  1. We discourage wash trading firmly, but we also realized that there were loopholes in Epoch 0 rules that were previously approved by the community. There weren’t time-weighted factors in the Trading Mining V2 Formula, and this eventually led to some users utilizing this loophole to wait until the end of the epoch to boost their trader scores.

In order to make corrections and prevent similar incidents from taking place in future epochs, we are proposing to improve trading rules by adding anti-washing mechanisms. Additionally, we are also working on new setups that can help to protect the traders’ benefits. We also welcome all MCDEX users to take an active role in the community votes and the conversations that help define our future path every day in our community channels.

  1. Should we exclude these addresses when distributing rewards? Although these addresses utilized the loopholes, the activities still happened within the Epoch 0 rules that were previously approved by the community. As a crypto native team that abides by “code is law,” we cannot simply go back to change what has happened due to a loophole in approved rules; if so, we believe this will lead to greater governance risks. What we should do is to learn from this incident and improve the rules to prevent similar issues from happening again in the future.

  2. We have also noticed some assumptions that those two addresses were from the team members.

We can firmly guarantee that the addresses are not from any team members, and please feel free to track the addresses since all data is on-chain and transparent.

Since its inception, MCDEX has been evolving in the decentralized derivatives exchange sector for more than two years, and the team has proved that we are here to build a fully permissionless DEX for the long-term vision. Therefore, there is no motivation and reasons for us to do such things that deviate from our vision. The product and rules are not perfect at Day 1, and we believe we can continuously improve the product together!

how much mcb did the wash trader gave you? I bet its a a lot. Have fun, enjoy some chinese noodles

@jean1 @jie @tc-mcdex, take a look at the list of people in support of this proposal here. Many of them are your earlier adopters, invested in the project since earlier days of MCDEX.

I know the Bot owner’s mainnet addresses (0xA5828, 0x88f29) were involved since early liquidity mining round XIA, and being a whale probably invested more than rest of us, but that doesn’t mean we should not be treated as equal as members in this community.

Should we exclude these addresses when distributing rewards? Although these addresses utilized the loopholes, the activities still happened within the Epoch 0 rules that were previously approved by the community. As a crypto native team that abides by “code is law,” we cannot simply go back to change what has happened due to a loophole in approved rules; if so, we believe this will lead to greater governance risks. What we should do is to learn from this incident and improve the rules to prevent similar issues from happening again in the future.

I think your “code is law” argument is weak, and untenable when contested.

  1. “code is law” can be applied to almost any DEFI exploits. We would still be on ETC and not see the success of Ethereum network today, if Vitalik Buterin agrees with your point of view.

  2. When this happens to your team’s funds, maybe in a less severe degree, you may apply “code is law” argument and it’s your team’s discretion to allow it. But this time is different, the bot is stealing from the rewards pool shared with all the rest of real MCDEX users. Do you have the consensus of the community to approve it?

    Why would you not open a snapshot to let community vote for this choice? I think the consensus is overwhelmingly in support of this proposal.

  3. Many counter examples can be found in space, dydx disallowed wash trader’s rewards in the midst of their mining epoch draws a direct parallel in comparison.

Even if voting is open, I guess the result will probably be against, as the mining result can forecast the voting result.

Was shocked to see the volume got pumped so high in the last day and I ended up earning less rewards, but I also saw the token price almost doubled since this mining thing started. Maybe the staking works lol? I think we have to take multiple aspects into consideration in this case, and I kinda agree with that what if the whale dumps opinion. If that end up happening, guess the situation becomes earning more rewards, but they worth less.
Probably not a popular opinion, just my train of thoughts

I respect your decision Miao but I don’t agree with it.

I think fellow MCB holders here and myself have already drawn out the magnitude of the damage that 0xd6/0xad will cause. @Ok_PrettyGood does have a point, that if voting is open, 0xd6/0xad will vote it down because he controls significant voting power. I ask you strongly re-consider in the spirit of decentralisation.

There is no absolute “code is law” truth. At the end of the day, the team still holds significant control and wise judgement to decide on the outcome of MCB distribution. You guys aren’t servants simply following the process and verdict of a prearranged plan.

And to 0xd6/0xad, it would be nice to hear from you and your thoughts. You may speak in Chinese if you want to, I know you are Chinese.

May i add @jean1 @jie that the address will still be able to manipulate rewards in epoch 1?

This leads to manipulation for a total of 2 epochs

And to 0xd6/0xad, it would be nice to hear from you and your thoughts. You may speak in Chinese if you want to, I know you are Chinese.

Interesting idea, you want to hear from 0xd672. I shared your message with someone in chat claims to a friend of someone knows the whale, here is the message he forwarded to me

“哈楼rune20,想和我说话?我是条大鲸鱼,我还会solidity。这是个公平的游戏,我和你们一样付了交易费,奖励是我应得的。拜拜”

I google translated it. It goes like this:
(Hello Rune, wanna talk? I am a big whale. I can code in solidity. It’s a fair game. I deserve the MCB rewards because I paid my fee just like you guys did. Bye.)

Do you have anything say to the whale? Happy to be your messenger.

“Was shocked to see the volume got pumped so high in the last day and I ended up earning less rewards”

No, it’s the last half an hour.

The best way to disable this type of exploiters is to only reward less than the trading-fees+basefee, at most the same amount as the fees. This way it max only gives the traders a full fee refund, we don’t want to pay users for wash trading.

There should not be a net positive of trading, if we have a net positive of trading there will always be wash traders in some way.

If we would like to have wash trading (because of better statistics for the exchange for example), but not make it obvious to outsiders, then banning the large wash traders as proposed is a good strategy.

Observation: More than 15,000 ppl in the group, but only 23 active users, trading ~$80M ETH-BUSD in the last 24 hours, and Bob traded more than 90% of the ETH volume. Interesting.

The real users can’t get good reward/profit so they don’t jump in? Is it due to some whale/wash trader take more than 80% of rewards?

Why not let the real users earn good money and attract more real users onboard to the platform? Let’s do user and volume organic growth.

The present situation is making “fake” volume to attract users, that’s not the valid logic. Users won’t jump in because of large volume, but for profit.

Chill bro. Someone in tg chat claims to be a friend of someone who knows Bob (0xd672) just forwarded me a message from him:

"
没看见我今天一天都在真的在交易吗?周末都没去搞嫩模,和你们一起玩无聊的交易,能体谅我做鲸鱼容易吗?你们只要加一块不拿超过30%奖池,我就不wash交易了,怎么样?我可以拉勾上吊保证。
"

I google translated it. It goes like this:
"
Did you see I was doing real trading the whole day today? Not attending to my fun weekend project, but doing this boring trading with you, do you think it is really easy for me as a Whale?

How about we make a deal? If you guys don’t take more than 30% of my pie, I am not gonna wash trade in this epoch? I can pinkie promise you.
"

Anything you have to say to Bob? Happy to be your messenger.