Nice proposal but I get questions, this proposal address to ban unauthorized copy trading wallets from Meteora’s airdrop raises valid concerns about fairness, fee dilution, and token price impacts. Critical questions: How will Meteora accurately identify copy trading wallets? What constitutes “unauthorized” copying on a permissionless blockchain? Could excluding copy traders reduce liquidity, harming the protocol? How feasible is manual verification of copying? Should rewards prioritize manual LPs without alienating copy traders who contribute TVL? A snapshot-based system may balance fairness and inclusivity.
1 Like
re: how to categorize a copy LP bot
People I spoke with check Solscan to see if similar trades are happening immediately after their action.
eg. This alpha wallet was losing about 2 SOL/day due to copy bots.
- There are 3 copy LPers on July 7.
- Once he removed liquidity, another 9 SOL was removed immediately with exact token ratios or halved token ratios, 1 to 2 blocks after, signifying they’re likely copy LP bots.
- He swapped the tokens 30s after, but into 9 SOL less liquidity. For smaller cap tokens this can immediately increase slippage and result in a loss 10-20% extra loss.
Its arguable that the liquidity ‘would have never been there’ if these copy LPers weren’t there as well, but since things are happening synchronously, it is an effective loss for the alpha wallet.
To categorize if something is a copy LP or not, we can look for this type of pattern and do wallet labelling en masse. It isn’t something trivial since it requires a lot of data cleaning, an accurate account of historical data, and well tested algorithm to make sure its accurate and fair.
RPS AI has this data, but it will cost us man-hours to get into it. Aside from copy LP there is actually MEV Point Farmers which have significant fake LP volume, which don’t actually contribute meaningful LP at all. Could dive into this if there was an interest. 
3 Likes
Team or community devs can also look into developing a robust system to categorize copy LP bots using Solscan data patterns, like synchronized trades and liquidity removal. They should allocate resources to leverage RPS AI’s data, ensuring accurate wallet labeling. Exploring MEV Point Farmers’ impact on fake LP volume is also worthwhile.
1 Like
Blockchain is permissionless. Blockchain is public.
The thrust of this argument is antithetical to everything web3 stands for. I understand the sentiment, but the proposal is misguided.
Don’t like copiers exiting before you? Use Met Engine (it withdraws/closes/swaps in one shot). No one can front-run those exits.
Others adding SOL to a pool is a net-positive: first, it draws more jup.ag swaps to the pool. Next, the more SOL liquidity provided the more stabilized the token and less aggressive its dumps are able to be.
Lastly, there’s no way to say that if someone didn’t use a copy-trade platform that they wouldn’t otherwise provide liquidity. They can nearly-as-easily just monitor the blockchain for transactions and manually replicate them. How would one ever know?
LP Agent and others, also, are planning on ways for the source wallet to earn a percentage from profits that copy-wallets earn. I’ve seen it noted that if this was put in place, that DLMMing with copy-followers would be akin to leverage-DLMMing with zero risk to the source wallet. You’d effectively be DLMMing with more SOL than you have, and reap the additional rewards if you win, but bear no classic liquidation risk if you lose.
So perhaps this bad-faith proposal shouldn’t pass and other methods can be arrived at to address the concern.
2 Likes