I really don't understand this trap review logic.

In our daily chat group, everyone talks about the market and chats casually, never touching CA or sharing links, being extremely cautious—yet the same batch of groups has already been shut down 6 times.

On the contrary, there is another group specifically targeting "tu gou" (a type of dog), where various contract addresses and wallet links are flooding the screen, and they dare to throw anything in there, and they are still doing well up to now.

What rules are being used to judge this? The more regular, the more dangerous?

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.

13 Likes

Reward
13
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

WhaleMistaker

· 11-30 02:57

The more you follow the rules, the easier it is to be checked; this logic is absurd.

View OriginalReply0

Layer3Dreamer

· 11-29 14:18

theoretically speaking, if we map this onto cross-rollup state verification logic... the moderation algorithm might be treating cautious behavior as a suspicious pattern itself. like, maybe the system flags consistency over pure compliance? ngl this feels like a recursive SNARK problem where proving innocence actually increases your risk vector.

Reply0

FloorPriceNightmare