Request for Information about Disputes #GDR-40

Governance & GIPs
1

The Arbitrators are contacting Indexer address 0xeeeee689aa442c607105f29f06d00d2f748776b2 and fisherman 0xbace05744f1d075ba6bb82ebf561c1c3915f5cd3 for a new dispute filed in the protocol.

Dispute ID: 0xae739d3e247d0e800f45d62cb7d3bfb85a7d6db72c4db8361f9dd2d25c662eb3
Allocation: 0x81d9db005b8670788299895ab8476a9325a4c585
Subgraph: QmadksPPom4tzys3utLDNf699dQNYVEhTBAMVFVyypZF7P

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

1 Like
2

Thanks arbitrators for opening the forum post.

Same like the other dispute. They closed subgraph that is not up-to-sync. You may check their operator wallet 0xcD09Fc5fc328DfEB2792248B03fEe9A0c0b216Aa
with tx ID 0x4d2f4ea0a10af1311f4ffba9fa02708a62340e311742c7b22a12b134bdee6e5e

They used the Close Allocation contract method directly. For synced subgraphs, they normally used the agent’s Multicall method. So yeah, looks like this one was manually closed not from the agent.

Additionally you can curl http://43.248.96.60:7600 with the subgraph QmadksPPom4tzys3utLDNf699dQNYVEhTBAMVFVyypZF7P, blockNumber = 72203298 it returns null value. 72203297 returns value which means they are only synced till here.

1 Like
3

Hey there! Thanks for raising this up.
We managed to verify the claims of the subgraph not being synced yet, nor it being synced since the beginning of the dispute, which could mean it wasn’t synced by the time the allocation closed happened.

Furthermore, we were able to find evidence that proves the indexer used another indexer’s PoI when closing the allocation:

      {
        "closedAt": 1752631700,
        "id": "0x81d9db005b8670788299895ab8476a9325a4c585",
        "indexer": {
          "id": "0xeeeee689aa442c607105f29f06d00d2f748776b2"
        },
        "poi": "0x14e1cbdc88ad72ac0368098fe275ba7f21a6e0d0b3403e619907b79fdd23e339"
      },
      {
        "closedAt": 1752606768,
        "id": "0x32060cb9720e164b04562c7942fe4848e3470d1b",
        "indexer": {
          "id": "0xe48b586eeb81bde60f14b0b8d80ddd06c7a24720"
        },
        "poi": "0x14e1cbdc88ad72ac0368098fe275ba7f21a6e0d0b3403e619907b79fdd23e339"
      }

0x14e1cbdc88ad72ac0368098fe275ba7f21a6e0d0b3403e619907b79fdd23e339
for both the disputed indexer and the most recent allocation close before it.

With all that being said, this is a clear breach of the charter, and thus the dispute will be accepted.
We’ll share the transaction of said dispute resolution once it goes through.

Thanks!

1 Like
4

Dispute accepted, tx hash: https://arbiscan.io/tx/0xfa21794de6227c80a8d5ddf8915695793a75c0f7a03254cdac9beb9adb26bc6e