2025-12-25 13:22:49

Seeing the recent discussions about the ARB "cheating" competition has been very popular, so I want to share my own participation data.

I traded a total volume of 70,000 VSN (buy and sell combined), and my final on-chain ranking was over 4,600. Honestly, there's no need to doubt yourself based on this result. Some people might be boosting volume within exchanges without it being on-chain, but when you do the math, it's clear— with a 0.3% fee inside the exchange, a 70,000 trading volume would require about 200,000 yuan in fees to be paid back, which isn't cost-effective. Truly large-scale traders aren't that many.

So, from on-chain data, the level of participation isn't actually that exaggerated. Of course, I observed the specific data through a certain data dashboard; that expert’s analysis tool is indeed reliable. For those who want to gain a deeper understanding of market trends, it's advisable to follow professional data sources.

ARB0.42%

VSN-0.41%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

12 Likes

Reward
12
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BlockchainDecoder

· 8h ago

70,000 users with 4,600 members, this fee cost analysis is indeed insightful. The practice of artificially inflating volume within exchanges is no longer cost-effective; data shows that a 0.3% cost directly eats up the majority, so it seems we still need to honestly go on-chain.

View OriginalReply0

RunWhenCut

· 8h ago

70,000 views ranked over 4,600, this data really isn't anything to be embarrassed about Exchanges repeatedly charging two thousand in fees, whose headache is this accounting On-chain is the real participation, don't be fooled by the exchange's tricks This round of ARB is a bit hard to understand, feels like the hype dropped pretty quickly The data dashboard is actually somewhat useful, but the subscription fee is a bit painful Being in 4,600th place out of all participants, what does it matter? Anyway, I lost a lot of money

View OriginalReply0

FrogInTheWell

· 8h ago

70,000 with a volume of 4,600 members, the ranking is indeed quite average. --- The set of exchanges that manipulate volume without actually on-chain is a losing game once you factor in fees; it's better to be honest and see it on-chain. --- I feel like everyone isn't as aggressive as they seem; comparing the data makes it clear. --- On-chain ranking might sound mysterious, but it's actually just straightforward. --- So, not many people are really into this, right? Most are just talk. --- Over 4,000 members doesn't seem too high or too low; it's a mid-tier level. --- When you calculate the exchange fees, you realize who's genuinely operating and who's just guessing. --- A reliable data dashboard is definitely necessary; otherwise, it's all about information gaps. --- The achievement of 70,000 is okay, no real regrets. --- I agree that participation isn't as exaggerated as some claim; on-chain data doesn't lie.

View OriginalReply0

ETHmaxi_NoFilter

· 9h ago

70,000 views dropped to 4,600th place, honestly, that ranking is okay. The transaction fees within the exchange are indeed not worth it. --- Speaking of which, the logic makes sense. Reverse engineering the cost of fake orders on exchanges shows who's talking nonsense. --- 4600th place sounds pretty average, but few people actually do the math carefully. Most are just blindly throwing money in. --- On-chain data is the real truth; everything else is nonsense. You need to trust professional data tools and not guess blindly. --- A trading volume of 70,000 for a 4600th place, the return rate is indeed quite average. Feels like there's not much point. --- How to put it? Don't say I didn't warn you. Some people just like to self-hypnotize and have high engagement. --- Data experts' analysis tools are indeed reliable, but the problem is most people simply can't understand what the data is saying.

View OriginalReply0

ChainComedian

· 9h ago

Seventy thousand transactions with 4,600 users, I need to think about this ranking. On-chain data really doesn't lie, and the logic of anti-rebate transaction fees within exchanges is solid. The participation in the chicken stealing game isn't as exaggerated as I imagined. By the way, is this data dashboard really accurate? It feels like the differences between various data sources are quite significant. Over four thousand users sounds okay, but who knows how the distribution will go later. The anti-rebate transaction fee calculations are quite precise, and many people indeed didn't expect this aspect. Wait, how should the major players operate to be more cost-effective? That's the key. Reliable data sources are true, but you also need to compare multiple sources to get a clearer picture.

View OriginalReply0