Side-chain bot activity discussion

I think the tax rate is laughable at the higher coin levels. I tested it with one I had a bunch of and it wanted a huge percentage of the value of a low end value coin. I believe it was about 40% of the amount I would receive and I would also lose money selling it before that even was considered. LOL

The developers claim they don’t want people investing in these yet that is what the creators and anyone that buys in early does. Without them your coin is worthless. Who will actually buy many of these coins outside of the closest friends and family of many of the coins? I know if I asked my friends and family to buy in, they alone would surpass the lowest supported coins without even trying, so imagine if those “investing” didn’t buy anything.

Right now I see a busted system and the way it is being repaired is by punching holes in the busted system creating a less appealing system for anyone that would hold larger quantities on this platform.

Just my two cents but I did like the general concept of bitcoin as explained in 2008. Too bad I cannot find where I had mine from when I moved last in 2010. LOL

1 Like

Bots are the least of the issue at hand when one can make multiple accounts to trade with, like flow-control right now, CAPTCHA is just another bandaid with bad adhesive. WHY IS THERE NO IDENTITY VERIFICATION TO CREATE ACCOUNTS. Ridiculous, learn from your peers and history.

1&2: While I agree with some of your points about 2FA & Captcha (I don’t think they should be used to address automated behavior at all). I still think 2FA on converts out from CC to Rally is not a bad thing. Increased security on monetary transactions out of a said economy isn’t a bad thing.

3: A comprehensive solution is needed to address bots, It is not just down to an application but a dedicated solution and team that addresses the issue. I disagree that there is no credible solution or way to counter or address bot activity and that all possible solutions are “snake oil salesman”. It’s more if bot activity is going to be allowed or not, which due to it being posted in the TOS it is not that is a moot point and pointless to rehash that argument. The solution I posted actually works similar to what you said would work in the short term to address the issue while a longer-term solution to deal with behavior, enforcement, and mechanics was developed. Earlier you said that basically nothing could be done. Also enacting the proposed solution would also improve Quality of Life across the board providing additional protection and security against things like DDoS, Server Overload, and Penetration/Vulnerability Scanning. Protecting against a vast array of bots among other things. All of which are value adds for a platform like ours. You also offered another solution with throttling, but it can not rely on one metric or system that can be circumvented by mirroring or matching.

4: The problem that people are trying to fix is that people are violating the terms of service to have an unfair advantage and reap a financial gain. Bots just happen to be the low-hanging fruit to use as an example of bad actors who are violating the rules for whatever reason and not being penalized. Turning a blind eye to violations of the TOS is a slippery slope and will encourage more bad behavior across the board. Using an argument that if a bot bought and held forever there wouldn’t be an issue, seems like a poor argument. If the bots didn’t front run and buy in 1st place and break the rules and TOS we wouldn’t have a problem either. Both are just as valid an argument, except one has the backing of the TOS, rules, law, and community and one does not. That is the core issue. We also aren’t talking anecdotal examples but easily verifiable, repeated, and unethical actions.

5: Bots are the enemy if the TOS says they are. So we as a community need to 1st decide if bots are allowed, and if they are under what conditions. As it stands bots are against the TOS so they are definitely an “enemy”. Also the example you used would be available to everyone on platform right as part of using platform and wouldn’t require the skills, expertise, or resources for building a bot to exploit? So I don’t see how that holds water. Bots are either allowed or they are not. Its not about whether removing or adding them solves anything. Its about whether they are allowed or not. Also that system doesn’t exist as described in your example so we don’t have a system that resembles what you positioned in your post, not even close. Basically a circular argument and chicken and egg problem.

6: The problem is fundamentally bots if the TOS says they are against the rules, and if certain repeated parties are enriching themselves financially by breaking the rules at least for sake of this particular thread. They are just one example of violations of the TOS that need to be enforced. As you posted this also looks bad from on overall PR, community, and platform aspect for all of us. Having a rule that you don’t enforce, which is also a sore spot of launches and is readily apparent to everyone on the platform is a problem that needs to be fixed. As I posted in the discussion in Discord, what I have seen is actually a mix of three separate issues 1. Bots, 2. Fair Launch, 3. TOS Violations & Enforcement. These need to be divided into separate solutions and threads because they relate but not are the same discussion. I also see people basically using “whale” and bot interchangeably when they are not the same thing.

7: An excuse to ban bots? They are in violation of the TOS, no excuse is needed to ban them or people profiting off them. The root issue is violations of TOS, regardless of if it is botting, or anything else that violates terms of service. Banning something against TOS isn’t a “bad” thing. It’s enforcing something you say is the rules to begin with.

8: Valid point. I don’t think anyone here is arguing for one to profit versus another or people have missed the point. Literally, it’s about bots and them being against TOS and having unfair advantages over human beings due to the way the platform is designed, it has nothing to do with positioning or profit. That is just a symptom of the problem. I would be just as against any violation of TOS this just happens to be the one that I think has one of the most negative impacts in the current ecosystem.

Grand needs to be commended here, for showing leadership. He basically hit every nail on the head from the community, network, and creator side. As it stands minutes of front-running by the same individuals in a mad dash using automated and generally inaccessible means are causing weeks to a month long of financial damage at a minimum.

I stand behind Grand’s approach to do something about it. There are more than a few options that we have available:

  1. KYC for new all new accounts (submission allows access to allow instant access for new fans if verified to have duplicate account both accounts are suspended unless combined)
  2. 2FA for converts to $RLY from respective Creator Coin
  3. Minimum 30 Day Suspension for Violation of TOS
  4. Ability to vote on rally.io with $RLY, this would increase engagement across the community
  5. Gating Creator Launch day buys with them airdropping Genesis coins from their wallet
  6. Fair Launch Solution
  7. Comprehensive DDoS, Bot, and Penetration/Vulnerability Scanning Protection Services

Being myself under attack from these frontrunners and bots, it’s really disheartening to hear community members state such things as “wait 2-4 weeks to use your economy because of minutes of front running”. You don’t see why people take issue? It’s because what is happening is not ethical, unfair, and bad for the community at large.

The indifference by some in the community who are supposed to care about the community is striking. To say that all of this front running, reward interference, financial damage, and reputation damage that just the Creators themselves suffer from the way the launches are perceived by anyone watching is nothing and just par for the course is beyond me. I can for sure tell you as a Creator that these actions by automated means have long-standing impact and damage to communities and their perception of Rally, outside of them joining at a peak. My community is basically locked out of even using the platform for weeks now due to having to wait for some frontrunners to unload their spoils right in front of us. It’s kind of sickening.

How do you prevent them from joining at peak when according to you bots and order in which people buy seems to not even matter. The position that this has no impact on an economy based on just the initial minutes is just wrong factually and in reality. Rewards, momentum, money, and time are all lost due to these actions. All because nothing is being done about something that’s supposed to be against the rules.

1 Like

Risky take, my dude. There’s a difference between violating the letter of the law vs violating the spirit of the law. The “they are bots, bots violate the TOS, therefore they should be banned” argument also implies that sending coin via Twitch bots or sending coin via Discord bots or using bots to collect historical data (all of which violate the “access, or collect data” portion of the TOS) are disallowed. Your primary belief may or may not be “all and any TOS violators should be banned”. But I think the TOS portion is ancillary for most other people. I think that they believe that bots are the cause of the perceived problem, and so are using TOS as an excuse to ban them. I think that they would no longer be interested in banning them if the bots were buying the coin and promising to hold it for a year.

As for “the indifference by some in the community”…firstly that’s emotional manipulation and has no place in a logical argument. Secondly, if anyone here was indifferent, they wouldn’t be arguing. Presenting an argument takes time and energy. Why would anyone spend either if they were indifferent?

1 Like

Any tools that are outside of TOS should be banned, or the TOS should be modified to reflect their acceptance. Are you implying that the problem is all “perception”? TOS as an excuse? Holding for a year? Did you literally not read what I typed?

  1. Bots are a real problem, due to violations of TOS, front running, network degredation, financial damage, interference with fair market forces, and automated access that is disrupting and causing damage across the platform in several ways. How long they hold is not relevant at all. You make quite a few assumptions and statements that are demonstrably false.

  2. Indifference by the community has an impact as well. The flippant and dismissive way that some in the community act about flagrant violations is appalling. This is real people’s money and lives being impacted and it deserves more than a casual and dismissive attitude. Just because someone is posting doesn’t mean they are presenting an argument that actually took time, forethought, and adds anything as far as providing a solution other than just let them have their way.

You selective scan through what someone posts and the real meat and solutions you ignore, if anything you defend bots being able to do these types of things and think we should just get out their way because nothing we do or anyone else can do will stop them. It a hopeless, helpless attitude and part of the reason this problem has developed to this level because apparently it cant be decided if something is against the rules or not.

1 Like

I agree with mrq02 - bots aren’t the problem. There are lots of problems, like the way we launch coins and how creator tax is calculated. Neither of those are caused by bots. Selling through flow controls with a bot isn’t harming anyone, it’s not like they are circumventing the flow controls.

FWIW bots exist in all crypto markets. If Uniswap, pancakeswap, binance, and coinbase decide to ban bots then maybe I would get on board. No other marketplace bans bots, neither should Rally.

3 Likes

This thread is now roughly addressed here: Addressing Bots and Multi Accounting Concerns

Please continue the discussion there. (Apologies for the split/duplicate threads. I’ll lock this one to avoid confusion.)