The Arbitrators are contacting Indexer address 0x9082f497bdc512d08ffde50d6fce28e72c2addcf and fisherman 0xfe56931ed1cd3021ef1162bae2b3872e8694d1da for a new dispute filed in the protocol.
Dispute ID: 0x37688090bea7b0acade036a9af824da517773f6e45dbca044da07ec6ed0dcbad
Allocation: 0x0ec48d7e0a5d3e94a3c2747856f0f00e493f53ec
Subgraph: QmZCXBToPx7Tymkv7wexog35WYqQo8Q2BPVGZvJ11KmKCq
Fisherman, could you share the insights or data you gathered that led to you filing the dispute? Please provide all relevant information and records about the open dispute. 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.
Please use this forum for all communications.
Arbitration Team.
Hi @tmigone, it’s me 0xfe56931ed1cd3021ef1162bae2b3872e8694d1da,
This dispute concerns the indexer 0x9082f497bdc512d08ffde50d6fce28e72c2addcf closing subgraph that was not synced 100%. The indexer only synced up to block number around 12388000, while the correct startBlock should have been 22102337 epoch 844.
The indexer reported a database failure on April 12. Also took at least 20 days to sync based on the first allocation opened on February 27 and closed on March 19.
Today is April 24 which is 12 days and I don’t see much progress that the indexer is close to being 100% synced.
Hi tonymontana,
Can you please clarify what is the actual fault for the dispute?
By March 19th, 2025 when we closed the allocation on this subgraph we had it fully synced and the POI is a valid one.
On April 12, 2025 we had a database failure which means we had to resync all of our subgraphs. This is a heavy subgraph, taking up 109GB so far and still syncing.
I don’t see any relation with syncing speed and validity of a POI. We might have started syncing offchain before the first allocation. Can you please expand on your observation?
From the last check, @megatron was synced up to block around 12388000 which was almost four years ago. It took @megatron at least 20 days to sync 100%. Now 13 days after the database failure, the subgraph is nowhere close to being 100% synced.
If @megatron started syncing at the same time the allocation was created then the current progress seems illogical. If offchain syncing method was used, are there any graph-node logs or grafana chart logs from the past two months that can be provided to support this statement?
@megatron agreed to provide logs from the failed database for @Inspector_POI’s disputes. I hope to see the same here.