I’d like to review some of the data that has been combined to make assumptions that this is a Governance Attack: going through the data, one by one.
Lets start with the real data from exchanges in Binance and Bybit, and compare it with the chart, provided by Cicada.
I was curious and I started to check was the funding rate so negative in the past 30 days actually on Binance? The data direct from the source in Binance would show otherwise.
I’ve have arrowed the CSV here, so you all can also download it and compare my figures. Visually, except for one day of large negative funding (I will get to this) on July 11th, rates look fairly normal, not enough to see evidence of aggressive hedging as implied by Cicada. See my spreadsheet snap below:
The annualised rate stayed positive across most time periods. In fact, in the period of June 14th to July 5th the annualised rate was near 9%.
In fact, it was in Bybit, where the funding rate was lower. However, the open interest stood at around only 2mm USDT, about half that of Binance. Hard to see that anamoly of a “shorter”.
Next, lets get to this anomalous volume on July 11th.
Lets go to the direct to source again, on Binance and look at the perps:
There is elevated volumes, but where is the shorter? In fact, the majority of market moving trades (taker orders) were buys. If there was hedging (net selling), you’d expect to see a significant imbalance of sell-taker orders, especially for the size that Cicada is imagining.
Volume is usually a function of volatility, and lets what happened on this day.
What we are looking at is a huge upward market move day, where naturally there would be plenty of day trading and positions changing hands amongst market players. Further with that is release of trade-able information on DWF being appointed a market maker for Truefi (see below Binance release on July 11th)
Proof in the pudding of open interest: is there a real change in open interest to see a shorter? This may interest you @rafaelcosman
On Binance, we’ve seen a steadily decreasing open interest of units over the past 30 days. For good measure lets check Bybit as well:
Again, we see open interest in terms of TRU token units decline over the past 30 days. So, where is this short?
It is questionable at best that much of the evidence is “irrefutable”.
The only item that is irrefutable is that:
- Tokens did come from Binance (but at 33% of tokens held in Binance, and as we know most real trading occuring there - so much so - that DWF has kindly offered to conjure up volume in other exchanges as a market maker)
- Addresses were made. Not all tokens which voted went to one address.
Are holders of the token which vote with movement from an exchange to staking contract to vote, considered an attack on its own? I have to agree with the @vandynathan here that it isn’t an attack.