UNISWAP研究員Michael Nadeau發現了奇怪的交易，其中有人交換了兩個stablecoins的價格為221,000美元，但僅收到了5,000美元

是一個被羊毛還是洗錢的胖子交易者？如果一個人通過網上銀行執行類似的交易，他們通常會要求您批准FX費率。

Last week, decentralized finance (DeFi) researcher Michael Nadeau highlighted a strange transaction in which someone swapping two stablecoins, USDC for Tether, started with $221,000 but only received $5,000. Many commenters on X assumed it was a fat fingered trader who got fleeced, while others argued it was money laundering.

上週，分散的金融（DEFI）研究員邁克爾·納多（Michael Nadeau）強調了一項奇怪的交易，其中有人交換了兩個穩定的公司，USDC換來了Tether，從221,000美元開始，但僅獲得了5,000美元。 X上的許多評論者都認為是一個肥胖的商人被羊毛，而其他人則認為這是洗錢。

If one were executing a similar transaction via online banking, they usually ask you to approve the FX rate. If you don’t agree quickly enough, the rate changes.

如果一個人通過網上銀行執行類似的交易，他們通常會要求您批准FX費率。如果您不夠快地同意，則費率會發生變化。

DeFi automated market makers (AMMs) take a slightly different approach so that all the questions are asked in advance. Instead of requesting rate approval, they ask how much slippage you are willing to tolerate when swapping two cryptocurrencies.

Defi自動化做市商（AMM）採用略有不同的方法，以便提前提出所有問題。他們沒有要求批准費率批准，而是詢問交換兩個加密貨幣時願意容忍多少滑倒。

So if you say you are willing to bear 1% slippage that means you might only get 99 cents in Tether for every $1 in USDC. If you are only willing to tolerate 0.01% slippage, there’s a reasonable chance your transaction won’t complete and you will have to try again.

因此，如果您說您願意承受1％的滑倒，這意味著您可能只能在USDC中獲得99美分的繫帶。如果您只願意忍受0.01％的滑倒，那麼您的交易很有可能無法完成，您將不得不重試。

Uniswap’s user interface makes 1% the maximum slippage, to protect traders. But if someone wants to execute transactions in code using the API, they have more flexibility. This particular trader failed to set the minimum acceptable amount they expected to receive.

UNISWAP的用戶界面使1％的最大滑倒是為了保護交易者。但是，如果有人想使用API​​在代碼中執行交易，則它們具有更大的靈活性。這個特定的交易者未能設置預期收到的最低可接受金額。

On its own, that would not have been enough to get fleeced to this extent. AMMs work with liquidity pools and use an algorithm to determine the exchange rate. The rate is influenced by the balance of funds between the two currencies in the trading pair. If there isn't enough of one of the currencies, then the rate can get lopsided.

就其本身而言，這還不足以使其陷入困境。 AMM與流動性池合作，並使用算法來確定匯率。費率受交易對兩種貨幣之間資金平衡的影響。如果沒有足夠的貨幣，那麼費率可能會被拒絕。

MEV and front running

MEV和前部跑步

Here’s where it gets messier. The Ethereum block builder executed a front running transaction. Even though the Uniswap liquidity pool for USDC to Tether had around $35 million, the builder made the pool completely lopsided, draining the USDC out of the pool, resulting in a silly exchange rate so that the trader apparently got fleeced. That front running transaction was quite a complex one that involved interacting with a pool on Curve as well as Aave.

這是凌亂的地方。以太坊塊構建器執行了前部運行事務。即使USDC到Tether的Uniswap流動性池約有3500萬美元，建築商也使游泳池完全偏斜，將USDC從游泳池中排出，從而產生了愚蠢的匯率，因此交易員顯然被羊毛了。前線運行交易非常複雜，涉及與曲線和AAVE上的池交互。

After executing the transaction that appeared to lose $216,000, the next transaction (more-or-less) reversed the front running transaction. However, that reversal transaction also paid the block builder, bob-the-builder, more than $200k in ETH.

在執行似乎損失216,000美元的交易之後，下一次交易（或多或少）扭轉了前部運行交易。但是，這項逆轉交易還付給了Bob-the-Builder的Bob-the-Builder，超過$ 200萬美元的ETH。

We took a look at bob-the-builder’s transactions, and 12 March seemed to be an exceptionally profitable day compared to the previous month. Apart from the $200k transaction, there were five other big ones yielding around $440k. During the previous month it mostly earned small amounts with the occasional $4k transaction and a handful of transactions earning around $25k.

我們看了鮑勃 - 構建者的交易，與上個月相比，3月12日似乎是一場盈利的一天。除了$ 200k的交易外，還有其他五項大型交易量大約為44萬美元。在上個月中，它偶爾的4,000美元交易和少數交易的收入約為25,000美元。

Is it money laundering?

洗錢了嗎？

Several commenters on X reckoned these transactions might be money laundering, including a co-founder of DeFi Llama. That’s because the source of the funds came from mixer-like addresses and some of the wallets were single use. If the trader is sufficiently sophisticated, the likelihood of making such a major mistake is slim.

X上的幾位評論者認為，這些交易可能是洗錢，包括Defi Llama的聯合創始人。那是因為資金的來源來自類似攪拌機的地址，其中一些錢包是一次使用。如果交易者足夠複雜，那麼犯如此重大錯誤的可能性很小。

Uniswap’s API documentation has specific notes on how to protect against this. Instead of using a slippage percentage, the trader should set the minimum amount they expect to receive, to say $219,000 in this case.

UNISWAP的API文檔具有有關如何防止此功能的具體說明。在這種情況下，交易者不應該設定他們期望收到的最低金額，而不是使用滑倒百分比，而是要說219,000美元。

“amountOutMinimum: we are setting to zero, but this is a significant risk in production. For a real deployment, this value should be calculated using our SDK or an onchain price oracle – this helps protect against getting an unusually bad price for a trade due to a front running sandwich or another type of price manipulation.”

“金額最低：我們設置為零，但這是生產的重大風險。對於真正的部署，應使用我們的SDK或OnChain Price Oracle計算此值 - 這有助於防止由於前部運行三明治或其他類型的價格操縱而導致的交易異常差的價格。”

The argument against the transaction being money laundering is the fact it’s so public.

反對交易的論點是洗錢的事實是如此公開。

Even if it is money laundering, this does not provide a good for reason for institutions to avoid using permissionless blockchains. If one used that rationale, nobody could use banks.

即使是洗錢，這也不能為機構避免使用無許可區塊鏈的原因提供好的理由。如果有人使用這種理由，則沒有人可以使用銀行。

In related news, this morning regulated crypto exchange OKX suspended its DEX aggregator service. OKX provides conventional centralized trading as well as aggregating decentralized exchanges (DEXs) across various blockchains into a single user interface, which allows non-custodial trading. It suspended the DEX aggregator after detecting activities by North Korea’s Lazarus group, and plans to institute additional upgrades, following the recent addition of hacker tracking features. While the suspension was voluntary, it consulted with regulators. OKX is registered in Malta under EU’s MiCA regulations.

在相關新聞中，今天早上監管加密貨幣交易所OKX暫停了其DEX聚合器服務。 OKX將各種區塊鏈的分散交易（DEX）提供傳統的集中式交易，並將分散的交易所（DEX）匯總到單個用戶界面中，這允許非監測交易。在發現朝鮮拉撒路集團的活動後，它暫停了DEX聚合器，併計劃在最近添加黑客跟踪功能之後進行額外升級。儘管停職是自願的，但它與監管機構進行了諮詢。 OKX根據歐盟的雲母法規在馬耳他註冊。

Meanwhile, the New York Federal Reserve explored block building, concluding that most builders comply with sanctions. It observed that non-compliant builders often earned low fees, implying it was a conviction issue.

同時，紐約美聯儲探索了街區建築，得出結論，大多數建築商都遵守制裁。它觀察到，不合規的建築商通常會賺取低費用，這意味著這是一個信念的問題。