Proposal
That each of the five providers below be chilled under FIP.02 for collusion.
Each provider gets its own vote. These are five separate management proposals, one address each, voted individually, exactly as every sanction this group has ever passed has been voted. This thread is the shared discussion document for all five, which is also established practice: the O1FTSO and Flare Ocean case ran off one thread naming five providers, and the FTSO UK and SolidiFi Nexus case off one thread naming two, with the votes kept separate in both.
| Provider | Registration weight | Closest peer, byte-exact | Peers at or above 60% | Measurement runs at or above 60% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stakeway | 0.094% | 93.3% | 20 | 292 of 292 |
| Encode Club | 0.954% | 93.3% | 20 | 288 of 288 |
0xdd8fe872d02942dbc3f5a2ecc62c78331430a90f |
0.157% | 92.2% | 20 | 148 of 148 |
| Luganodes | 1.187% | 90.9% | 20 | 292 of 292 |
| Cottage Nodes | 0.441% | 90.5% | 20 | 203 of 204 |
Together they hold 2.83% of registration weight (reward epoch 441).
What FIP.02 says
FIP.02 defines collusion as:
“Collusion, defined as multiple FTSO data providers showing a strong statistical correlation in their submissions or clearly submitting through the same node.”
The first limb asks one question: do the providers show a strong statistical correlation in their submissions? It contains no requirement of agreement, coordination, intent, or common control. The adjacent definition of duplication does contain a common-control element, so the drafters knew how to write one and did not write one here.
No coordination is alleged. None is required for the definition to be met, and nothing below asserts any.
The measurement
The infraction is the byte-exact agreement, and it is the only thing measured below.
Over 120 consecutive voting rounds (1,483,208 to 1,483,327), every pair of the 98 providers revealing values was compared cell by cell. A cell counts only where both providers priced the same feed in the same round, and counts as agreement only where the encoded integer is identical to the last digit. It is a count of reveals already on chain. There is no model in it and no reference instance.
Across all 4,753 pairs of providers on the network, median agreement is 8.2%, and nine pairs in ten agree on fewer than 20% of cells. Two independent providers reading different venues essentially never produce the same integer to the last digit on a volatile feed, which is why the field rate is the natural null and why the figures below are not a coincidence of market conditions.
The five providers
1. Stakeway
| Peer | Byte-exact agreement | Cells compared |
|---|---|---|
| Encode Club | 93.3% | 7,440 |
0x882ee9ce... |
92.2% | 7,440 |
0xdd8fe872... |
92.2% | 7,440 |
| Luganodes | 90.9% | 7,440 |
| WitterFTSO | 90.6% | 7,440 |
| Cottage Nodes | 90.5% | 7,440 |
And 14 further providers at or above 60%, 20 in total, averaging 85.3%. The next provider below that group agrees with it on 50.4% of cells.
Registration weight 0.094%. It has been at or above 60% with at least one peer in every one of the 292 measurement runs in which it has revealed values, the first on 2026-08-02.
| Role | Address |
|---|---|
| Identity | 0xaa9c30ff905d056e7dd06e0d81246c68272d63d6 |
| Submit | 0x4f45b627acf32d715cb246f0a993df93556cadc4 |
| Delegation | 0xf26be97eb0d7a9fbf8d67f813d3be411445885ce |
| Node 1 | 0xdaf8e891dcfb50a9423ece99735f57ea8e55de84 |
2. Encode Club
| Peer | Byte-exact agreement | Cells compared |
|---|---|---|
| Stakeway | 93.3% | 7,440 |
0xdd8fe872... |
92.0% | 7,440 |
0x882ee9ce... |
91.8% | 7,440 |
| DataVector | 91.0% | 7,440 |
| WitterFTSO | 90.8% | 7,440 |
| Cottage Nodes | 90.4% | 7,440 |
And 14 further providers at or above 60%, 20 in total, averaging 85.0%. The next provider below that group agrees with it on 50.1% of cells.
Registration weight 0.954%. It has been at or above 60% with at least one peer in every one of the 288 measurement runs in which it has revealed values, the first on 2026-08-02.
| Role | Address |
|---|---|
| Identity | 0xf697cef9e0be6bebac06410a5bcc56f7e8f52835 |
| Submit | 0x0054a662c151a36b5b0358fd7a1a51180dad2fd6 |
| Delegation | 0x1c2bb2ca14914a462ab7268de4a48ef6445116c2 |
| Node 1 | 0x5f1ab76e2d65cbc8eeb79ae464997e041283ba11 |
3. Provider 0xdd8fe872d02942dbc3f5a2ecc62c78331430a90f
| Peer | Byte-exact agreement | Cells compared |
|---|---|---|
| Stakeway | 92.2% | 7,440 |
| Encode Club | 92.0% | 7,440 |
| DataVector | 91.4% | 7,440 |
0x882ee9ce... |
91.2% | 7,440 |
| WitterFTSO | 90.2% | 7,440 |
| Scintilla | 90.2% | 7,440 |
And 14 further providers at or above 60%, 20 in total, averaging 84.8%. The next provider below that group agrees with it on 49.9% of cells.
Registration weight 0.157%. It has been at or above 60% with at least one peer in every one of the 148 measurement runs in which it has revealed values, the first on 2026-09-07.
| Role | Address |
|---|---|
| Identity | 0xdd8fe872d02942dbc3f5a2ecc62c78331430a90f |
| Submit | 0x4ee74b4bd478621f51db5294d00729376b8208ba |
| Delegation | 0xc4cceca39bdca9428b482aff538ad68558597b79 |
| Node 1 | 0x61c71a6efc597378dc5c187678d923ef33e066e2 |
4. Luganodes
| Peer | Byte-exact agreement | Cells compared |
|---|---|---|
| Stakeway | 90.9% | 7,440 |
0x882ee9ce... |
90.6% | 7,440 |
| Scintilla | 89.6% | 7,440 |
0xdd8fe872... |
89.5% | 7,440 |
| Encode Club | 89.3% | 7,440 |
| WitterFTSO | 89.3% | 7,440 |
And 14 further providers at or above 60%, 20 in total, averaging 83.9%. The next provider below that group agrees with it on 50.1% of cells.
Registration weight 1.187%. It has been at or above 60% with at least one peer in every one of the 292 measurement runs in which it has revealed values, the first on 2026-08-02.
| Role | Address |
|---|---|
| Identity | 0x3887d51081d03ee6b1ad8bd0dc4e2ec88683a109 |
| Submit | 0x473620d640e7df8b36b6042b3ccb2891acf8bb0e |
| Delegation | 0xb53f6cfab63cabfc255c702ebeb273510db541d7 |
| Node 1 | 0xe0f0d029ac3ac199c72bb3b96a75a7f04b9f9505 |
5. Cottage Nodes
| Peer | Byte-exact agreement | Cells compared |
|---|---|---|
| Stakeway | 90.5% | 7,440 |
| Encode Club | 90.4% | 7,440 |
| Scintilla | 89.7% | 7,440 |
| Chainbase Staking | 89.7% | 7,440 |
| WitterFTSO | 89.6% | 7,440 |
| Nansen | 89.4% | 7,440 |
And 14 further providers at or above 60%, 20 in total, averaging 83.9%. The next provider below that group agrees with it on 49.2% of cells.
Registration weight 0.441%. It has been at or above 60% with at least one peer in 203 of the 204 measurement runs in which it has revealed values, the first on 2026-08-02.
| Role | Address |
|---|---|
| Identity | 0x781ea2dce725ca139c6ecc62c1ee7c8876608392 |
| Submit | 0x04a7aa6b6a318b525aff7bafa0269d9bef977380 |
| Delegation | 0x6ebbd69832af87434253c10f9045e012286f509e |
| Node 1 | 0xbe0ecca33898fd3ea6fd94cb73300fa7ad35a756 |
| Node 2 | 0xacfa586de25f8eae7ba25e839e99a70362469030 |
How to verify this before voting
Do not take it on trust. Every input is public.
- Live figures, per provider and per pair, including the full pairwise matrix and a CSV: Oracle Independence
- Stakeway, live figures and past readings: oracleindependence.com/provider/0xaa9c30ff…
- Encode Club, live figures and past readings: oracleindependence.com/provider/0xf697cef9…
- Provider
0xdd8fe872d02942dbc3f5a2ecc62c78331430a90f, live figures and past readings: oracleindependence.com/provider/0xdd8fe872… - Luganodes, live figures and past readings: oracleindependence.com/provider/0x3887d510…
- Cottage Nodes, live figures and past readings: oracleindependence.com/provider/0x781ea2dc…
- Method in full, including what it cannot establish: oracleindependence.com/method
- Procedure: decode each round’s reveals from the Submission contract
0x2cA6571Daa15ce734Bbd0Bf27D5C9D16787fc33f, selector0x9d00c9fd; take the 4-byte value per feed in canonical order; for every pair, count the cells where both priced the feed and the integers are equal. Voting round isfloor((unixtime - 1658429955) / 90); round R reveals during R+1.
Each provider is named here by its identity address, which is the address the entity registry, the block explorer and the provider lists all key on. The submit address, which is what appears as tx.from on a reveal, is in each table above.
What a chill has to cover
FIP.16 registration weight is computed from two sources: mirrored stake across a provider’s node ids, and the WNat delegated to its delegation address. VoterRegistry.chill takes a list of beneficiaries, so a chill must name the delegation address and every node id listed above. Chilling the delegation address alone leaves roughly 80% of an average provider’s registration weight untouched, which is the appearance of a sanction rather than a sanction. With every leg named, registration weight is zero and require(_weight > 0) prevents registration for the epochs concerned.
Four of the five have exactly one registered node id, so a chill on each names two beneficiaries: the delegation address and that node id. Cottage Nodes has two, so its chill names three. All are listed in the tables above.
Precedent
The Management Group has chilled for collusion on this ground many times. In each case below the evidence was the submissions themselves: values that matched or moved together in a way the submissions of independent providers do not. Every one of these carried.
| Date | Provider | Ground | Vote |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 2023 | FLRLabs | Common developer and algorithm with LoveFTSO | 61 to 0 |
| May 2023 | LoveFTSO | Common developer and algorithm with FLRLabs | 62 to 0 |
| July 2023 | HXK Oracle | Same algorithm as Sirius FTSO | 54 to 0 |
| July 2023 | Sirius FTSO | Same algorithm as HXK Oracle | 52 to 0 |
| July 2023 | CoffeeFTSO | Same algorithm as LoveFTSO | 54 to 0 |
| July 2023 | Best FTSO | Same algorithm as tSovreign | 47 to 1 |
| July 2023 | tSovreign | Same algorithm as Best FTSO | 47 to 1 |
| July 2023 | Worlds FTSO | Same algorithm as tSovreign and Best FTSO | 49 to 0 |
| December 2023 | FLR-Labs | Same algorithm and price feeds as an anonymous provider | 54 to 0 |
| December 2023 | Anonymous provider 0xe51d146c... |
Same algorithm and price feeds as FLR-Labs | 54 to 0 |
| December 2023 | Best FTSO | Same algorithm as AilandFlare | 52 to 0 |
| December 2023 | AilandFlare | Same algorithm as Best FTSO | 51 to 0 |
| November 2025 | FTSO UK | Shared infrastructure: identical price data to SolidiFi Nexus | 39 to 8 |
| November 2025 | SolidiFi Nexus | Shared infrastructure: identical price data to FTSO UK | 40 to 7 |
| September 2026 | Provider 0x882ee9ce... |
Byte-identical submissions with 21 other providers | 26 to 8 |
Three of these are worth reading closely.
FTSO UK and SolidiFi Nexus (2025). The discussion thread rested on one observation: the two were “submitting 100% identical price data”, “identical down to the last decimal in every submission”. The providers answered that it was a configuration error and not intended. The thread’s reply, which the group then voted for, was that “the claim of an ‘accident’ is irrelevant”, and that “by mirroring data, the providers acted as a single entity, not as the two independent oracles they are registered as.” That is the same test applied here: what was submitted, not why.
Best FTSO and AilandFlare (2023). The evidence was two providers “submitting near identical pricing data” over a sustained period. Near identical was sufficient. The figures above are identical to the last digit.
Provider 0x882ee9ce... (2026). Provider 0x882ee9cebe3d7b38eebd640… (Collusion) is the same finding on the same measurement as this proposal, and it passed 26 to 8, closing 2026-09-19. That provider is still submitting, and it appears among the six closest peers of four of the five providers named above.
Every sanction this group has voted, 29 of 29 across all four polling deployments, named exactly one address. There has never been a bundled sanction vote, and this is not one. Where several providers were implicated in the same case they were voted separately on the same day, four of them at once on 2023-12-19 with 51 to 54 members voting on each. Concurrent per-provider proposals are proven practice here, not a bottleneck.
What a chill means here
Under FIP.02 a first chill removes a provider for two reward epochs. A second is a permanent ban. For all five of these, this is a first chill.
This proposal creates no sanction of its own. It applies one that already exists.
The five proposals
Each will be submitted separately to the Management Group, with this thread as its discussion link. Titles and payload addresses:
| Proposal title | Address named |
|---|---|
| Stakeway (Collusion) | 0xaa9c30ff905d056e7dd06e0d81246c68272d63d6 |
| Encode Club (Collusion) | 0xf697cef9e0be6bebac06410a5bcc56f7e8f52835 |
| Provider 0xdd8fe872d02942dbc3f5a2ec… (Collusion) | 0xdd8fe872d02942dbc3f5a2ecc62c78331430a90f |
| Luganodes (Collusion) | 0x3887d51081d03ee6b1ad8bd0dc4e2ec88683a109 |
| Cottage Nodes (Collusion) | 0x781ea2dce725ca139c6ecc62c1ee7c8876608392 |
Five proposals, one per provider. A “for” vote is a vote to chill.
