Request for information about disputes #GDR-16

Governance & GIPs Arbitration
1

The arbitrators are contacting Indexer address 0x62eecb89c407a731e06e2b2c25563e2a8f96dfaa and Fisherman 0x2c452073377ec65b4b8c7dfa995624d60028cd53 about disputes filed in the protocol.

It looks like there’s a solid POI match for this particular allocation on Epoch 776 with reference block 16604064 so if the Fisherman could provide more information as to why the dispute was filed that’d be greatly appreciated!

Purpose of the Requirement

This requirement is related to the following disputes:

Dispute (0x2b07b4fb43084b5b519adb0926327a89e077314e39aa92a683cb090e8f33940b)
├─ Type: Indexing
├─ Status: Undecided (0.42 days ago)
├─ Indexer: 0x62eecb89c407a731e06e2b2c25563e2a8f96dfaa
├─ Fisherman: 0x2c452073377ec65b4b8c7dfa995624d60028cd53
├─ SubgraphDeployment
│  └─ id: 0x3a5ee3b201681a9182df0a473ab7aae93fec25457cfaf3edd6ab81ab20e6746a (QmSGWH16ACyftb87UtZ3zaJ8Gw2FMbr7XsT6LY3bBhr7WR)
├─ Economics
│  ├─ indexerSlashableStake: 8745.821964164617074133 GRT
│  └─ indexingRewardsCollected: 150.468219888166748056 GRT
├─ Allocation
│  ├─ id: 0x7ba06d64de3606b6a3f59c5105c243f203e16f2c
│  ├─ createdAtEpoch: 770
│  ├─ createdAtBlock: 0x850f30de5a221f77b026c847d338925ac4b6ba24d91cf29f3d352f2a3ae3eb93
│  ├─ closedAtEpoch
│  │  ├─ id: 776
│  │  └─ startBlock: 0xd7ae8d17042f8e5169b3b5652aedab0d973bffeac419b5bc60aa5fd6753632d3 (#16604064)
│  └─ closedAtBlock: 0x6da5a01d75d5dcc686f86240c32cdea0211c61f57b0d2ab9f34e15b59b7eee15 (#16611053)
└─ POI
   ├─ submitted: 0xa1b11e047c5670f04e52f7d808b72efab1c0d08b3b3345b3f02f71cc359d69a7
   ├─ match: Not-Found
   ├─ previousEpochPOI: Not-Found
   └─ lastEpochPOI: Not-Found

About the Procedure

The Arbitration Charter regulates the arbitration process. You can find it in Radicle project ID rad:git:hnrkrhnth6afcc6mnmtokbp4h9575fgrhzbay

For communications, please use this forum. Additionally, please monitor Graph Protocol’s Discord #arbitration (https://discord.gg/9gg7XvfggW ) for any arbitrator reaching out for more information.

1 Like
2

decisionBasis here.

Although likely economically unfeasible, I want to attract attention to this indexer’s actions. Combination of self-signalling and allocation spreading (involving active rugging of other indexers once they come to dilute the rewards) allowed this actor to increase self-stake from 250k to 350k within 3 months. While smaller indexers can feasibly sustain 20-30% APY, 160% is not a sign of healthy inflation reward farm.

Network design allows to slash this person for 1500 grt per allocation, making it hard to justify putting 10k towards opening the dispute. I would very much like to see some investigation and punitive action.

1 Like
3

Gotcha - thanks for the quick reply @inflex :+1: . It looks like this didn’t occur on this particular allocation and subgraph so I’m assuming you have a list of previous offenses committed by said indexer? I’d suggest filing disputes only on allocations that were directly involved in violating the rules.

4

He curates mostly from 0xd20d9248977f955b9e0405987713e4257763c3df, so this particular allocation falls into the pattern.

1 Like
5

I’ve scripted some basic graph ql queries - this indexer has 286 allocations total, and among them 182 allocations to subgraphs curated by 0xd20d9248977f955b9e0405987713e4257763c3df.

I hope @86b can provide more detailed study with fancy plots and nasty details, but the pattern is certainly there.

The Graph is getting economically attacked, and there is no valid mechanism for now to stop it. In the current framework, the solid part of allocations are older than slashing timeframe (two thawing periods I think, i.e. two months), and overall stake is not inclining to create dispute for each allocation.

While #GDR-15 showed that actor might be decided at loss in multiple disputes, and slashed for a single, I guess the vice versa situation is possible, where only one dispute is open, but slashing amount is way more than single dispute assumes. In other words, slashing amount should not necessarily be a function of disputes number.