2025-12-28 11:21:18

The Lighter project team has issued an official response to the recent anti-cheating controversy. Founder and CEO Vladimir Novakovski revealed that the platform has improved its appeal process, and the current number of submitted appeals is significantly lower than initially estimated. Users who doubt the algorithm's judgment can visit the Discord community to fill out an appeal form for a review. However, the project team also emphasized that to prevent malicious users from "precisely evading" detection, the specific logic and parameters of the algorithm are not publicly disclosed. This approach has sparked considerable discussion in the community—on one hand, it protects the appeal rights of ordinary users, and on the other hand, it maintains the effectiveness of the anti-cheating system through the confidentiality of technical details. This balanced approach may serve as a reference for other Web3 platforms facing similar disputes.

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.

14 Likes

Reward
14
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

OvertimeSquid

· 10h ago

Appeal channels sound nice in theory, but without revealing the algorithm logic, who can tell if it's fair or not? The excuse of not disclosing the algorithm has been heard too many times. In the end, it's still up to luck. Filling out a form on Discord? Fine, but it's a hassle. Hopefully, it won't go unnoticed like last time. Basically, they just want to avoid offending both sides. Those with real issues would have left long ago. However, the scoring and anti-cheat measures are indeed more thoughtful than some other projects. Are the low appeal numbers because people have really left, or does no one trust it at all? Black box operations to prevent circumvention sound like an excuse for having too much power.

View OriginalReply0

WagmiAnon

· 14h ago

The appeal channel has been improved, but the black box algorithm issue still feels quite frustrating. --- I understand that the algorithm isn't public, but how are users supposed to know what they violated? --- What does it mean if the number of appeals is below expectations? Is it really that no one is cheating, or has everyone given up on appealing? --- Is this a balanced approach? It still feels like you're leaving yourself an escape route. --- How long does it take to wait for the Discord appeal process? It's driving me crazy. --- The black box anti-cheat systems are quite a few, but they are indeed better than outright bans. --- How do other platforms learn? Do they learn from their confidentiality policies? --- Still haven't seen any successful appeal cases returned. --- This approach sounds good, but the key is how well it's executed. --- Hey, where do I submit the appeal form? Can someone point me in the right direction?

View OriginalReply0

LightningLady

· 14h ago

The opacity of the algorithm is indeed frustrating, but understanding the logic behind anti-avoidance is important. Appeal volume is lower than expected? It feels like some people haven't been wrongfully accused, which is good. Black box reviews are always a pitfall; hopefully, they won't become an excuse for passing the buck. Having only an appeal channel isn't enough; it depends on how they handle it. Details determine the experience. Filling out forms on Discord... you have to go through the hassle again. Efficiency really depends on luck. This round of balancing is pretty decent; at least they didn't directly confront the community. It's already not easy for Web3 projects to do this. Having a response is better than silence; let's see how things develop.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityNinja

· 14h ago

Improving the appeal channel is a good thing, but not disclosing the algorithm is a bit sneaky... It feels a little underhanded.

View OriginalReply0

SilentAlpha

· 15h ago

The algorithm is not public, so be it. Anyway, no one can verify it even if it's explained. The key is that the appeal channel works. --- That same old "cannot be disclosed for safety reasons," I've heard it too many times... It's already good if filling out a form on Discord can lead to a review. --- Is the number of appeals lower than expected? Is it really fewer, or does no one trust this process at all? --- The balance is pretty good, but I still want to know how they determine cheating. It's a bit mysterious. --- This response speed is okay, at least they didn't pass the buck. Let's see how effective it is before making further judgments. --- Doing black-box operations in a legitimate way, impressive. --- Are other platforms copying this move? Bro, are you giving them a negative example? --- Is the appeal channel really effective? Are there successful cases?

View OriginalReply0

HorizonHunter

· 15h ago

I accept this logic, but to be honest, it's understandable that the number of appeals is low... Most people are too lazy to bother. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the algorithm not being公开, it still feels like a riddle. This balancing act is well played, but it depends on how it is actually implemented. Another appeal on Discord, when can we have a simpler方案? To put it nicely, ultimately it still depends on whether anyone has been wronged.

View OriginalReply0

CounterIndicator

· 15h ago

Is the algorithm not public? I've heard this excuse too many times, and in the end, it's the project team that makes the decision. Appeals are essentially useless. --- Low appeal volume might not be due to fairness; it’s probably because those banned are already numb. --- Wow, filling out a form on Discord for a review—what's the difference from having no review at all? Who knows how they handle it behind the scenes. --- Anti-cheat is important, but there are so few projects with truly transparent mechanisms. This is the current state of Web3. --- I understand keeping technical details confidential, but can't they at least tell users the reason for the judgment? This is too much of a black box. --- It's the same old excuse again: protecting system integrity is a forbidden zone for code, a common problem in Web3. --- What does low appeal count indicate? It probably means no one believes appeals are effective when banned. --- Balance? To me, it seems more like a one-sided definition of "balance."

View OriginalReply0