2025-12-28 12:25:04

Let's reverse engineer the logic. The anti-witch detection in some projects has obvious issues—since user attributes need to be classified, the evaluation criteria should be announced in advance so that the community knows what situations will be deemed as witch accounts.

Instead of the other way around, where the project first labels a batch of accounts as witches, and then asks users to appeal, proving they are not witches. This process completely reverses the burden of proof.

Comparing this to the approach of a certain leading cross-chain project reveals the difference. Their anti-witch mechanism is strict, but at least the standards are clear and the rules transparent, allowing users to understand in advance. This is a responsible governance attitude.

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.

6 Likes

Reward
6
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CodeAuditQueen

· 6h ago

This is a typical access control vulnerability in smart contracts. When permissions are not clearly defined, penalties are imposed, which is as absurd as launching without an audit.

View OriginalReply0

ETHmaxi_NoFilter

· 6h ago

That's right, this is a typical case of scapegoating culture. First cancel without explaining the reasons, truly impressive. --- So the question is, where is the problem? Clearing out users before rules are made public— isn't that nonsense? --- The top-tier projects are strict but at least transparent, which shows respect for users. Those secretly opposing the witch hunt deserve to be dissed. --- Proving oneself is not a witch... this logic is absurd. When did it become my turn to prove my innocence? --- Compared to some projects, they are really low. They don't even dare to clarify the rules in advance and still want to pretend to be the governing body. --- This is abuse of power. Convicting first and judging later—has Web3 not learned this yet?

View OriginalReply0

CoconutWaterBoy