UNISWAP研究员Michael Nadeau发现了奇怪的交易，其中有人交换了两个stablecoins的价格为221,000美元，但仅收到了5,000美元

是一个被羊毛还是洗钱的胖子交易者？如果一个人通过网上银行执行类似的交易，他们通常会要求您批准FX费率。

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.

上周，分散的金融（DEFI）研究员迈克尔·纳多（Michael Nadeau）强调了一项奇怪的交易，其中有人交换了两个稳定的公司，USDC换来了Tether，从221,000美元开始，但仅获得了5,000美元。 X上的许多评论者都认为是一个肥胖的商人被羊毛，而其他人则认为这是洗钱。

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.

如果一个人通过网上银行执行类似的交易，他们通常会要求您批准FX费率。如果您不够快地同意，则费率会发生变化。

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自动化做市商（AMM）采用略有不同的方法，以便提前提出所有问题。他们没有要求批准费率批准，而是询问交换两个加密货币时愿意容忍多少滑倒。

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，如果您说您愿意承受1％的滑倒，这意味着您可能只能在USDC中获得99美分的系带。如果您只愿意忍受0.01％的滑倒，那么您的交易很有可能无法完成，您将不得不重试。

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的用户界面使1％的最大滑倒是为了保护交易者。但是，如果有人想使用API​​在代码中执行交易，则它们具有更大的灵活性。这个特定的交易者未能设置预期收到的最低可接受金额。

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，这还不足以使其陷入困境。 AMM与流动性池合作，并使用算法来确定汇率。费率受交易对两种货币之间资金平衡的影响。如果没有足够的货币，那么费率可能会被拒绝。

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.

这是凌乱的地方。以太坊块构建器执行了前部运行事务。即使USDC到Tether的Uniswap流动性池约有3500万美元，建筑商也使游泳池完全偏斜，将USDC从游泳池中排出，从而产生了愚蠢的汇率，因此交易员显然被羊毛了。前线运行交易非常复杂，涉及与曲线和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.

在执行似乎损失216,000美元的交易之后，下一次交易（或多或少）扭转了前部运行交易。但是，这项逆转交易还付给了Bob-the-Builder的Bob-the-Builder，超过$ 200万美元的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.

我们看了鲍勃 - 构建者的交易，与上个月相比，3月12日似乎是一场盈利的一天。除了$ 200k的交易外，还有其他五项大型交易量大约为44万美元。在上个月中，它偶尔的4,000美元交易和少数交易的收入约为25,000美元。

Is it money laundering?

洗钱了吗？

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上的几位评论者认为，这些交易可能是洗钱，包括Defi Llama的联合创始人。那是因为资金的来源来自类似搅拌机的地址，其中一些钱包是一次使用。如果交易者足够复杂，那么犯如此重大错误的可能性很小。

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文档具有有关如何防止此功能的具体说明。在这种情况下，交易者不应该设定他们期望收到的最低金额，而不是使用滑倒百分比，而是要说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.”

“金额最低：我们设置为零，但这是生产的重大风险。对于真正的部署，应使用我们的SDK或OnChain Price Oracle计算此值 - 这有助于防止由于前部运行三明治或其他类型的价格操纵而导致的交易异常差的价格。”

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

反对交易的论点是洗钱的事实是如此公开。

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.

即使是洗钱，这也不能为机构避免使用无许可区块链的原因提供好的理由。如果有人使用这种理由，则没有人可以使用银行。

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.

在相关新闻中，今天早上监管加密货币交易所OKX暂停了其DEX聚合器服务。 OKX将各种区块链的分散交易（DEX）提供传统的集中式交易，并将分散的交易所（DEX）汇总到单个用户界面中，这允许非监测交易。在发现朝鲜拉撒路集团的活动后，它暂停了DEX聚合器，并计划在最近添加黑客跟踪功能之后进行额外升级。尽管停职是自愿的，但它与监管机构进行了咨询。 OKX根据欧盟的云母法规在马耳他注册。

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.

同时，纽约美联储探索了街区建筑，得出结论，大多数建筑商都遵守制裁。它观察到，不合规的建筑商通常会赚取低费用，这意味着这是一个信念的问题。