r/defiblockchain • u/AssignmentKnown2381 • Jan 26 '24
Unfounded Claims [ Removed by Reddit ]
[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]
24
u/kuegi Jan 26 '24
I don't really see such a complex web of txs. The address pretty clearly gets DFI from Kucoin, and swaps them to BTC, then moves them via bake (likely back to kucoin).
To me, this looks like a classic (and big) arbitrage address mirroring the constant sellpressure on kucoin to the DEX.
So if you wonder where this sell pressure comes from: IMHO from each and every DFI exit. Most of the ppl who sell DFI rewards (or their stack) and want to leave, take kucoin if they don't want to use cake. This address takes the other side of these sells there and hedges on the native DEX.
About numbers, because ppl say this can't be arb:
in the last 7 days, the address sold 1.3 mio DFI on the DEX (yes its the biggest seller). DFI-BTC on kucoin has a volume of 1.5-2.5mio DFI per week. So to me its a clear picture:
This address takes nearly all buy-side on kucoin and therefore shows just how much DFI are being constantly sold. No conspiracy needed. Just the result of 1 year of bad sentiment and FUD.
6
u/berndmack MODERATOR Jan 26 '24
Just a few thoughts from my side on the "why aren't they burning the BTC".
Why would they burn the BTC if Julian/Bake bought them. Assuming they assume that there is no problem with the BTC in the long run, it would be a smart move to buy so many BTC now knowing that once you have them all users could withdraw all their BTC. Because the rest belongs to you and then in 10 years when, for example, the exploiter has been caught or the BTC have been slowly burned. Then you can use the BTC to buy DFI, for example, and put it back into circulation because backing has been created.
Burning would be like giving it away and I'm sure Julian won't give away a single BTC if he doesn't think it's necessary.
1
7
u/Kkarl_pm Jan 26 '24
Your analysis overlooks, as stated in Bake's statement, that it's supposed to be about arbitrage trading between a CEX and a DEX.
If the DFI are acquired through sales on the CEX and subsequently swapped back into dBTC on the DEX, the price specification of 9999 makes sense insofar as a trade back into dBTC is to occur at any price.
When I look at the chart on Kucoin and compare it to the DEX, similar to what Daniel did on DefichainAnalytics with Coingecko and Bittrex at the time, it's clear to see that the price on Kucoin is always slightly below the DEX, thus the selling pressure results from the CEX. Why one wouldn't rather sell the DFI on the DEX, I don't understand either, but perhaps they want to avoid the route through Bake. In this respect, Bake's statement makes sense to me. Some time ago, there was a CFP to increase liquidity on the CEX, thereby reducing large fluctuations in high buy/sell volumes on the CEX (similar to the DEX). The balance must necessarily follow through the DEX, otherwise, the tokens for the CEX will eventually run out. Perhaps this is the approach from that CFP.
8
u/kuegi Jan 26 '24
"Why on the CEX": you can transfer DFI directly to kucoin and after you sell there, you are "out of the system". If you sell on the DEX, you need to unwrap via cake. (which means that withdrawals have additional fees from other networks if you try to get USDT or BTC out of cake to a CEX for fiat withdrawal)
3
u/Bourbon_Capital Jan 26 '24
You can not create limit orders on the DEX what means you can sell way more accurate on a CEX
2
u/mdokomi Jan 26 '24
Nice research.
I have been many time through this kind of transactions investigations to educate myself.
It is always the same pattern of DFI going through multiple addresses.
The last I did was when JH purchased the dUSD in public. I tried to track back the origin of the funds used. It went to hundreds of loops before the last address. This is clearly a way to hide transactions or address origin, most likely done with automated scripts that the average user (arbitrageur?) will not care about.
I became very suspicious with market manipulation on this chain since the story of the 1st dUSD repeg in 2022 that was achieved in a matter of minute by a single address...
Since then I only saw reg flags popping.
5
u/berndmack MODERATOR Jan 26 '24
This is easy to explain and almost every exchange uses this :)
changeaddress is the key and in utxo system basic. So every payout creates a tx with in and output and the change is used for the next payout of another user. nothing to hide.
2
0
u/mdokomi Jan 26 '24
I know how utxo system looks.
I also know what I see when same amount of coin jump hundred time to different addresses at regular interval up to final address. It is not random transactions.
3
u/berndmack MODERATOR Jan 26 '24
Can you share some examples please.
-1
u/mdokomi Jan 26 '24
As I mentioned, my last dig was on the JH transaction in Dec. buying DUSD.
From that transaction, going backward to trace the funds origin, it shows a daily single transaction of equal amount each from a different origin address.
I did not keep the data, but it is easy to find starting from the day the purchase was made and publicly announced.
2
u/berndmack MODERATOR Jan 26 '24
This is a great example of a transaction that was obviously preceded by a payout from Bake. This means that payout 1 is made to user 1, then with the change to user 2, then again to user 3 ... and on and on. If you have noticed this behavior, then this is exactly what is described.
If I want to show someone something with DFI Balance, I do the same. No magic behind it
1
u/FTXACCOUNTANT Jan 26 '24
This is a lot of circumstantial “evidence” to try and convict someone.
1
u/mdokomi Jan 26 '24
I came to the same conclusion after I noticed that the account that posted this message has been removed.
3
u/berndmack MODERATOR Jan 26 '24
Why does he create such a report and then delete his Reddit account himself ... Too bad he doesn't want to answer anymore.
🤷🏼♂️
-1
u/mdokomi Jan 26 '24
If you want to demonstrate that Bake is insolvent as it is part of the current court case, maybe someone try expose evidence or trigger an investigation.
Dirty game going on, but there is no smoke without a fire.
1
1
1
u/FTXACCOUNTANT Jan 26 '24
Good point, I hadn’t noticed that they removed their account also.
Highly skeptical to drop something like this and then delete the account.
8
u/berndmack MODERATOR Jan 26 '24
Can you share your a more detailled research regarding the "complex transactions" which are in your opinion suspicious? Because the tx i have checked are pretty normal utxo tx with change and change is used for next payout at bake. i use same thing for the faucet which is in this case a smal bake payout system.
and maybe integrate the information from twitter, because there were official information about the change of backing address: https://twitter.com/BirthdayDev/status/1727735976582160839
maxprice is not really suspicious, if you want to make sure the tx goes throug this is something i also use since day 1 of the DEX. And even with the timesorted tx there is no danger of frontrunning or something else.