Request for Information about Disputes #GDR-41

Governance & GIPs
1

The Arbitrators are contacting Indexer address 0xeeeee689aa442c607105f29f06d00d2f748776b2 and fisherman 0xfe56931ed1cd3021ef1162bae2b3872e8694d1da for a new dispute filed in the protocol.

Dispute ID: 0xce3f21264d65e05d02dae23d055586f784acb68b26bcb30170ad85f365ce6e14
Allocation: 0x36273f1b9405ab1983ad7cffffcd7e6dd33d3013
Subgraph: QmcQY5m381fPQUS6cEFY4VFZadtarYXNfRbEWJ7G7gbq7T

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

2

Hi @juanmardefago it’s 0xfe56931ed1cd3021ef1162bae2b3872e8694d1da,

The indexer closing QmcQY5m381fPQUS6cEFY4VFZadtarYXNfRbEWJ7G7gbq7T subgraph that was not 100% synced. The indexer synced up to block 160387598, while the correct startBlock should have been 363455507 epoch 974.

Please check http://43.248.96.60:7600/status on the indexer’s publicProofsOfIndexing.

3

Hi Juan,

Been trying to reach you several days ago on Discord, but no feedback. Could you please help understand what is happening with the Graphops indexer ? A lot of allocations has been force closed and I’m wondering what will happen next ?

4

Hi Juan,

Been trying to reach you several days ago on Discord, but no feedback. Could you please help understand what is happening with the Graphops indexer ? A lot of allocations has been force closed and I’m wondering what will happen next ?

Hey there! @pilar answered in the other post. We didn’t get any particular DM so we didn’t really see it, but as a small heads-up, please avoid posting comments unrelated to the main topic next time :slight_smile:

5

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": 1753968808,
        "id": "0x36273f1b9405ab1983ad7cffffcd7e6dd33d3013",
        "indexer": {
          "id": "0xeeeee689aa442c607105f29f06d00d2f748776b2"
        },
        "poi": "0x358e03725abfeca0261c25b40c7bd0d4ec9761b475195d9d1c40436dc6f1f7b3"
      },
      {
        "closedAt": 1753956328,
        "id": "0x81772b39d68988c54b61b8143d67530594f77d05",
        "indexer": {
          "id": "0xc9014686f6336ad558b539565d5dff840b339082"
        },
        "poi": "0x358e03725abfeca0261c25b40c7bd0d4ec9761b475195d9d1c40436dc6f1f7b3"
      }

0x358e03725abfeca0261c25b40c7bd0d4ec9761b475195d9d1c40436dc6f1f7b3
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!

6

Not fun seeing Bitcoin drop while waiting for the transaction to be processed.

7

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