Proposal: Blacklist of Arb Bot

Key words… “Taking Advantage” of the community.

3 Likes

We need a solution to this asap

4 Likes

Given that the legal end has been tightened by MLS submission, I support this proposal with a plan to ensure that any similar bot of this magnitude of efficiency is ban in the future without recourse to a vote, if possible.

6 Likes

I have been watching this address since day one and it’s been really annoying.

I wholeheartedly agree with this proposal and I’d like to ask for an expansion to it:

Once a wallet has been confirmed to be a bot, blacklist it without the need of another proposal.

In this way, once whoever owns wallet 404 realizes they’ve been blacklisted, they can’t just switch to a new wallet.

Is it possible to blacklist the IP and MAC address? Surely they wouldn’t take it as far as changing VPN locations just to trade K9 when their wallet is set up for many other projects.

I don’t know the logistics of all this, but I don’t want to limit this proposal to just 1 wallet. Rather to all wallets confirmed to be a bot.

3 Likes

Don’t quote me on this but I believe that needs to be stated in the contract. Some tokens have implemented a feature that will also freeze the assets on the wallet and not allow it to receive any more. My guess is that there may be more legal and moral conflicts with that route.

1 Like

You can’t freeze an entire wallet like that.

1 Like

Only by wallet address and it only impacts KNINE.

2 Likes

MLS how difficult will it be be for the ARB bot just to change wallets and continue to operate? Will this be an action that eliminates it or does this action just cause in inconvenience on the BOT and will back up and running days or hours later?

2 Likes

Blacklisting is not a pleasant thing. It’s not a solution. The same bot can be set up again with a different address. Starting a vote to apply a blacklist to a single wallet used by the bot is not sensible either. Initiating a voting process on the forum to fight against a lightning-fast bot and waiting for it to conclude… When the same bot starts operating with a different wallet, we go through the same process again? If we choose to fight this way, it will only serve to provoke the adversary further. Although not as much as you, I do have some knowledge of how bots operate. The bot might not even realize we’ve blocked it for a long time, but another bot can start doing the same thing at any moment. In the end, we will become a project that does blacklisting. Moreover, arbitrage is a livelihood for many people; it’s not such a bad thing, people seize opportunities everywhere. These bots are very ruthless, but they are also the product of superior effort. It may not be the right way to earn, but we can’t say it’s undeserved either. Can’t the opposite be true as well? I think one could buy K9 cheaply on Uniswap and sell it on MEXC. In our current situation, liquidity is very sensitive, so we should consider adding a sell tax until the liquidity grows enough to be unaffected by these bots. We should aim to protect the community, not to stop the bot, because these bots will be present at every stage.

4 Likes

I’m curious as to whether Mr Lightspeed would consider this an emergency or not?

2 Likes

Yes it is bothersome but without it there, there would be larger gaps and much larger dips because there would be more room for manipulation just my opinion of course. Plus like someone else said all they have to do is change addresses moving forward and possibly putting a :dart:. The real thing to be watched is the wallet count we want that to keep going up. Hope everyone is having a great day!

0x55AeB56136091E9dCE99c91f4e2592FDB7c07EF2
Is only selling as well.

Maybe there is a way to build a :cold_face: down period into the contract like if a single address makes more than 5 sells an hr it have a cool down period of 5 hrs.(or what ever is reasonable) That would help combat the arb :robot: , because like most I can only swap for a buy on uni. The other exchanges aren’t in the US. Or we need a sell tax so obnoxious that bots can’t compete at least until more exchanges list. Just an :bulb:I’m more focus on buying the lower lows and wallet count going up. :ok_hand:t2:

1 Like

Being completely honest the blacklist functionality of this project kept me from investing earlier. Blacklisting should be a last resort option in my opinion, due to the negative responses we could see from it. As with any opportunity to make money, regardless of other’s expenses, someone will fill the void. If the bot is not being malicious I am concerned for causing the bot to do so. I am against the blacklisting of the Arb Bot.

3 Likes

I am fundamentally opposed to blacklisting and not allowing market freedom. I believe actions like this to be short sighted.

3 Likes

To call an emergency meeting? No.

I appreciate the lively discourse here and there are many good positions that have been made.

In the end, here to support any way possible even if this doesn’t go through.

3 Likes

Sorry if this has been answered previously but what is to stop the user from changing the bots address after the original one has been blacklisted?

2 Likes

Depends if it’s worth it to them. It’s impacting every token on the chain. It may go unnoticed.

3 Likes

Hopefully they dont make another one :grin:

This is a very helpful conversation to have. I support whatever outcome there may be.

4 Likes