Pricing links between 3 SGB anonymous providers

ftso group test
#1

This is a proposal to ban SGB Data Providers:

0x5b28a13ab8f85bf5c17254e6e72e2e1e7a5275ac

0x733a73408d8e106b6ac999ccd9f3d308bcaeb7b5 – Civil FTSO

0x814cd7d3cee516b8e0537085ecdeca7695d65c63

These three providers were already spotted and chilled within a recent proposal back in Dec 23.

This is now their second strike and therefore a ban for these providers will take place if this proposal is accepted by the MG.

Unfortunately, there’s enough evidence to suggest that the 3 providers in question are still colluding while submitting prices and therefore compromising the integrity and accuracy of the network.

The STSO Monitor Collusion Tool has shown a strong and solid link at 0.99% for months now,

Screenshot 2024-03-06 at 14.03.17
Screenshot 2024-03-06 at 14.03.171042×1116 70.5 KB

and even at 0.999 these providers still show a strong collusion link:

Screenshot 2024-03-08 at 08.24.10
Screenshot 2024-03-08 at 08.24.102022×1322 187 KB

In addition, there’s a strong and suspicious coincidence in an incident where these three providers stopped submitting prices at exactly the same epoch, two hours before the vote ended for the Dec 2023 proposal.
Epoch: 396274
0x814cd7d3cee516b8e0537085ecdeca7695d65c63
0x733a73408d8e106b6ac999ccd9f3d308bcaeb7b5
0x5b28a13ab8f85bf5c17254e6e72e2e1e7a5275ac

The screenshot below shows the exact same XLM price submitted by same providers:

photo_2024-03-08 11.23.16
photo_2024-03-08 11.23.16591×1280 75.9 KB

However, the strongest evidence comes from similar movements in reward rates during certain epochs.
It is very diffcult for independent data providers to replicate this behaviour unless they are colluding by sharing the same algo.
These 3 providers go up and down in reward rates following a very similar pattern during the same periods of time.
This is a pattern that repeats over and over again accross multiple epochs.
Please see pict below for a few examples:

Screenshot 2024-03-08 at 09.36.07
Screenshot 2024-03-08 at 09.36.07928×500 71.9 KB

Please see below reward rates data collected since Jan 2024 for these three providers and used to build the graph above:

Timestamp EpochId 0X814CD7D3CEE516B8E0537085ECDECA7695D65C63 0X733A73408D8E106B6AC999CCD9F3D308BCAEB7B5 0X5B28A13AB8F85BF5C17254E6E72E2E1E7A5275AC
A
19/01/2024 05:20 410092 0.720486111 0.723263889 0.694444444
19/01/2024 08:20 410152 0.715277778 0.715972222 0.676388889
19/01/2024 11:20 410212 0.701736111 0.696875 0.668402778
19/01/2024 14:20 410272 0.665277778 0.667361111 0.638194444
19/01/2024 17:20 410332 0.664930556 0.666319444 0.652083333
19/01/2024 20:20 410392 0.630902778 0.636111111 0.613194444
19/01/2024 23:20 410452 0.618402778 0.620486111 0.618402778
20/01/2024 02:20 410512 0.633333333 0.640972222 0.638194444
20/01/2024 05:20 410572 0.643402778 0.632638889 0.637847222
20/01/2024 08:20 410632 0.660416667 0.654513889 0.655555556
20/01/2024 11:20 410692 0.685416667 0.695138889 0.671527778
20/01/2024 14:20 410752 0.689583333 0.694097222 0.69375
20/01/2024 17:20 410812 0.700347222 0.702777778 0.690972222
20/01/2024 20:20 410872 0.719097222 0.726736111 0.712847222
Timestamp EpochId 0X814CD7D3CEE516B8E0537085ECDECA7695D65C63 0X733A73408D8E106B6AC999CCD9F3D308BCAEB7B5 0X5B28A13AB8F85BF5C17254E6E72E2E1E7A5275AC
B
25/01/2024 05:20 412972 0.690625 0.703472222 0.690625
25/01/2024 08:20 413032 0.699305556 0.715277778 0.705208333
25/01/2024 11:20 413092 0.695138889 0.688194444 0.6875
25/01/2024 14:20 413152 0.700347222 0.707986111 0.69375
25/01/2024 17:20 413212 0.697569444 0.701041667 0.700347222
25/01/2024 20:20 413272 0.685763889 0.682986111 0.675
25/01/2024 23:20 413332 0.653125 0.656944444 0.634375
26/01/2024 02:20 413392 0.602777778 0.588194444 0.563541667
26/01/2024 05:20 413452 0.588888889 0.597569444 0.5625
26/01/2024 08:20 413512 0.578472222 0.590625 0.544444444
26/01/2024 11:20 413572 0.559722222 0.585069444 0.548263889
26/01/2024 14:20 413632 0.584027778 0.601388889 0.559722222
26/01/2024 17:20 413692 0.554513889 0.631597222 0.517013889
26/01/2024 20:20 413752 0.64375 0.695138889 0.586805556
26/01/2024 23:20 413812 0.678819444 0.690277778 0.658680556
27/01/2024 02:20 413872 0.667361111 0.688194444 0.670138889
27/01/2024 05:20 413932 0.652430556 0.663541667 0.653125
27/01/2024 08:20 413992 0.655902778 0.660069444 0.651041667
27/01/2024 11:20 414052 0.672569444 0.654861111 0.658333333
27/01/2024 14:20 414112 0.694791667 0.695138889 0.690972222
27/01/2024 17:20 414172 0.688888889 0.691319444 0.691666667
27/01/2024 20:20 414232 0.690972222 0.6875 0.682291667
27/01/2024 23:20 414292 0.686458333 0.686805556 0.668055556
28/01/2024 02:20 414352 0.686111111 0.703125 0.665625
Timestamp EpochId 0X814CD7D3CEE516B8E0537085ECDECA7695D65C63 0X733A73408D8E106B6AC999CCD9F3D308BCAEB7B5 0X5B28A13AB8F85BF5C17254E6E72E2E1E7A5275AC
C
04/02/2024 23:20 418132 0.676041667 0.69375 0.675
05/02/2024 02:20 418192 0.712847222 0.704513889 0.687152778
05/02/2024 05:20 418252 0.717708333 0.709722222 0.683333333
05/02/2024 08:20 418312 0.688888889 0.698611111 0.684722222
05/02/2024 11:20 418372 0.685416667 0.700347222 0.669097222
05/02/2024 14:20 418432 0.660763889 0.642013889 0.626736111
05/02/2024 17:20 418492 0.636805556 0.6375 0.606944444
05/02/2024 20:20 418552 0.649652778 0.638541667 0.61875
05/02/2024 23:20 418612 0.661111111 0.638541667 0.626736111
06/02/2024 02:20 418672 0.638194444 0.619097222 0.611805556
06/02/2024 05:20 418732 0.677430556 0.636805556 0.623263889
06/02/2024 08:20 418792 0.676388889 0.665972222 0.639236111
06/02/2024 11:20 418852 0.68125 0.692361111 0.646875
06/02/2024 14:20 418912 0.659722222 0.65625 0.620486111
06/02/2024 17:20 418972 0.664930556 0.665625 0.642013889
06/02/2024 20:20 419032 0.68125 0.671527778 0.665972222
06/02/2024 23:20 419092 0.678472222 0.7 0.670138889
07/02/2024 02:20 419152 0.689583333 0.7125 0.684027778
07/02/2024 05:20 419212 0.694097222 0.709027778 0.681597222
07/02/2024 08:20 419272 0.701041667 0.704861111 0.679513889

A lot of the hard work has already been done by many people in the past for previous proposals against these providers for exhibiting inappropriate behaviour towards the rest of the community. These providers have not shown any signs of change despite having been penalised not long ago so this proposal is hoping to put a final end to this saga.

It would be great to start V2 with a group of data providers that care for the integrity of the SGB network and work hard to protect it from collusion. Therefore we would invite anyone with more evidence against/for these 3 providers to comment on this proposal. Thank you.

5 Likes
#2

Great job on collecting evidence. We’ll wait to see their reply, but the evidence looks pretty clear

3 Likes
#3

wow, evidence seems crystal clear

3 Likes
#4

The evidence is clear and I support this proposal

2 Likes
#5

Nice work! Clear to me.

3 Likes
#6

Thanks for preparing this evidence. I support this proposal.

3 Likes
#7

Thanks for the info, I have tried to contact Civil FTSO for comment, but am unable to.

Can I ask if anybody has any contacts for:
0x5b28a13ab8f85bf5c17254e6e72e2e1e7a5275ac

0x733a73408d8e106b6ac999ccd9f3d308bcaeb7b5 – Civil FTSO

0x814cd7d3cee516b8e0537085ecdeca7695d65c63

So I can reach out?

2 Likes
#8

This is the guy behind Civil (plus the other 2 providers) but all his socials are dead … sacred-danny (Danny Jin) · GitHub

#9

Hi
Thanks. I will reach out

#10

Good job FTSO London on collecting and indexing all this information.

Its time very consuming and takes away from the time needed to maintain develop the provider and other projects.

We know these providers are guilty as they have been found to break the rules again and again.
The question remains why should they get a second chance for an offense so great against a decentralized oracle system

4 Likes
#11

I support this proposal

#12

Aimlezz support this chill - it’s very clear evidence.

2 Likes
#13

We support this proposal

2 Likes
#14

Based on the gathered evidence Bushi supports the proposal

1 Like
#15

TempestFTSO supports this proposal.

1 Like
#16

Thank you for the great investigating job! We support this proposal.

1 Like
#17

Looks like good evidence showing collusion. We’ll back this unless a compelling argument from the offending ftsos is presented. Doesn’t seem likely, though.

#18

The evidence presented seems more than enough to pass the burden of proof.

I’ll be voting in favour of the chillz