Another Indexer made me aware of this specific case a while ago and I was still trying to organise my thoughts on the topic.
There are many behaviours that can be conducted within the limits of the network but might fall under the banner of “bad behavior.” My personal opinion is that any behaviour that is net negative for the network and its inhabitants is eligible for a dispute, so that precedence is set in stone. It could be argued that this subgraph spamming and signal boosting activity is stealing earnings from Indexers that don’t choose to behave like this. Although maybe not on the same level of malicious behaviour, we do have precedent being set on previous disputes that include Indexer’s behaviour.
@suntzu, from my personal experience interacting with them since Mission Control, is not a bad actor. However Indexers are going to push the limits of the protocol and when the incentives aren’t yet balanced between staking and query fees, we’re going to continue to see Indexers push those limits. If they push them repeatedly, we need to act and draw the line if appropriate.
I think it is honorable that @KonstantinRM brings this up as an open discussion and I’d like to read more opinions. However the dispute process is there for a reason and I believe it should be allowed to perform its role, should someone choose to raise a dispute. And I think @suntzu long standing reputation since Mission Control should play into the decision of any dispute. I think the outcome could really go either way as it sits on a sort of “behaviour boundary” and this sort of ambiguity is exactly what I think the Arbitration process can help with.