O1 did not cut ties with colluding developer or still uses colluding algo

ftso group test
#21

We support this proposal

1 Like
#22

Hey Matt-4dads, Last year, O1FTSO has already been sanctioned to remove 20M vote power for transferring SGB tokens through the same Bitrue account. I donā€™t think we need to discuss it again here. As already mentioned, our algorithm is different from other FTSOs. If youā€™d like, I can share the algo with the Flare community to prove itā€™s mine.

Having said that, I would like to ask you one thing. I know that your reward rate is very low. As a result your FTSO is submitting very poor prices. Iā€™d rather you devote yourself to renewing your algo.

1 Like
#23

Thanks for the response ā€” vote live on both networks - proposal id 14

#24

If you are going to share your algo with the community I guess 4Dads might improve its reward rates :smiley:

As far as Iā€™m interested to see your code from an educational perspective thatā€™s up to you only. Time is running out for the chilling proposal, though.

2 Likes
#25

I would not say the prices being submitted by low reward rate providers are poor, rather I would say the prices being submitted are not like other prices being submitted.

In any case, I dont recommend you share your algo, it would create price copying i.e. collusion and further centralisation.

Collusion has caused a lot of damage to the ftso system and unwinding it is going to take a long time. I mean would you be confident in me and my team valuing your assets to maintain a collateralised ratio (F-asset system)? Or are you only interested in reward rates and to hell with other bits of the ecosystem?

[Added: we (Sun-Dara) do not rely on the ftso for income because of collusion, its just too risky for us too]

2 Likes
#26

Seperatly for the record, I have voted FOR chilling O1FTSO

1 Like
#27

you can see progress here and also vote here

Songbird:

https://songbird-explorer.flare.network/address/0x790525B93Fa4BFd3A586b68C5F41c113645f8AF6/write-contract#address-tabs

Method

castVote

Use Proposal ID 14, and 1 for chilling, 0 for NOT chilling

For flare

https://flare-explorer.flare.network/address/0x461c4219d5fcAF0fEA304F57a4b0f8061f08064A/write-contract#address-tabs

castVote

Use Proposal ID 14, and 1 for chilling, 0 for NOT chilling

#28

There are 3 providers who voted in this proposal but are not members of the FTSO management group.

#29

It is evident from these transactions that the address(0x5E42b020aC0B8DA6ec190899ffd560373f1979e8) belongs to the flare community, implying community intervention in voting.

#30

If the addresses is not associated to a member itā€™s just because the member set a proxy address to vote. The address 0x5E42b020aC0B8DA6ec190899ffd560373f1979e8 is the proxy of NORTSO:

Screenshot_20230831_130155

#31

But I donā€™t understand how he can remove other providers from the management group.

#32

Members choosing not to vote in proposals that reach quorum can be removed. You find the details in the contract https://flare-explorer.flare.network/address/0x461c4219d5fcAF0fEA304F57a4b0f8061f08064A/contracts#address-tabs

1 Like
#33

IMG_2796
IMG_27961241Ɨ1041 227 KB

1 Like
#34

Hi

It appears that we have reached quorum for both proposals (Flare and Songbird). I thought I should allow you to know what happens after the proposal voting times expire in the interest of fairness and openness.

But in summary, both proposals will be passed on to the Flare foundation to review the evidence presented. The[n if] the Flare Foundation agrees with the Management Group, then the signal provider is chilled for 2 FTSO Reward Epochs and results in a strike against the signal provider, and a second strike would result in a permanent ban.

Full details here

1 Like