Request for Information about dispute GDR-20

Governance & GIPs Arbitration
1

The arbitrators are contacting indexer address 0xae9bfdf9eeec808f4f3f6f455cb1968445cc6f2f (indexafrica.eth) and Fisherman 0x4208ce4ad17f0b52e2cadf466e9cf8286a8696d5 (@InspectorPOI) about a dispute filed in the protocol.

Dispute ID: 0x173022fa5fdc8c4723ccb6ae850836599e5f735ec27d81d779f1473d693b57b3

@InspectorPOI, could you share the data you gathered that led to you filing the dispute?Please provide all relevant information and records about the open disputes. This will likely include POIs generated for the affected subgraph(s) .

About the Procedure
The Arbitration Charter regulates the arbitration process. You can find it in Radicle project ID rad:git:hnrkrhnth6afcc6mnmtokbp4h9575fgrhzbay or at GIP-0009: Arbitration Charter - HackMD

For communications, please use this forum

1 Like
2

Adding additional details for the dispute:

Dispute (0x173022fa5fdc8c4723ccb6ae850836599e5f735ec27d81d779f1473d693b57b3)
├─ Type: Indexing
├─ Status: Undecided (0.76 days ago) [45 epochs left to resolve]
├─ Indexer: 0xae9bfdf9eeec808f4f3f6f455cb1968445cc6f2f
├─ Fisherman: 0x4208ce4ad17f0b52e2cadf466e9cf8286a8696d5
├─ SubgraphDeployment
│  └─ id: 0x85e35f73a4012e8212b372d5011f573f6413f55ac14f177d75ad9bdf36dd6ac6 (QmXMJ2Hnhhoz6bGFNtTBjnf7kAk9CNCQG7r4R5b7fyVjD7)
├─ Economics
│  ├─ indexerSlashableStake: 72230.766467327815218619 GRT
│  └─ indexingRewardsCollected: 6226.86706881275872 GRT
├─ Allocation
│  ├─ id: 0xc7661ce53b4eb18bc9c24a8bc42f421558171ce5
│  ├─ createdAtEpoch: 692
│  ├─ createdAtBlock: 0xa2219d71bdaeaa421a42559ff9b17d8021d1a7b1296a59de15e052b49de144d6
│  ├─ closedAtEpoch
│  │  ├─ id: 713
│  │  └─ startBlock: 0x70becf10e6bb30c7ed7e757bb81857669c71b436604bcb9870984a690658b092 (#21159137)
│  └─ closedAtBlock: 0x7d66996d354d602207e4400719b75437c6e318cc1841e9ed0255c51f45e2d516 (#21163355)
└─ POI
   ├─ submitted: 0xf517b1d09e3f7af1f55b3f4325ff516e055707d92aed71f2774103080e0d54e0
   ├─ match: Not-Found
   ├─ previousEpochPOI: Not-Found
   └─ lastEpochPOI: Not-Found
3

Dear Arbitration Team,

I am disputing the IndexAfrica indexer (0xae9bfdf9eeec808f4f3f6f455cb1968445cc6f2f) for closing two allocations on two different subgraphs with the same POI.

Subgraph: Ramses Analytics (v0.0.5)
Deployment ID: QmW8rGBMvNtkrtpsPbXBHhbzX5k9Kq75kv1NyNnvpQV1eU
Allocation ID: 0xe9e95ef370e0ab6618c65602211f9bef794dd626
POI: 0xf517b1d09e3f7af1f55b3f4325ff516e055707d92aed71f2774103080e0d54e0

(Under dispute)
Subgraph: Uniswap V3 Arbitrum (4.0.1_1.5.3)
Deployment ID: QmXMJ2Hnhhoz6bGFNtTBjnf7kAk9CNCQG7r4R5b7fyVjD7
Allocation ID: 0xc7661ce53b4eb18bc9c24a8bc42f421558171ce5
POI: 0xf517b1d09e3f7af1f55b3f4325ff516e055707d92aed71f2774103080e0d54e0

Both allocations were closed on the same day, with a time difference of only 8 minutes between the closures.

Here are a few points I’d like to highlight:

  1. Uniswap subgraphs are substantial and require a significant amount of time to sync.
  2. It doesn’t make sense to have the same POI on two different subgraphs.
  3. IndexAfrica also force-closed (0x0) an allocation on the same Uniswap V3 Arbitrum (4.0.1_1.5.3) subgraph (Allocation ID: 0x4c88baefab86ee35c58f68e5b8bc4aaac24c2f4f), which remained active for 117 days—well beyond the epoch limit—from June 25th to October 20th.

While point 2 is self-explanatory, I would still like to question the disputed indexer about the reason behind having a duplicate POI on two different subgraphs.