2025-12-26 18:22:18

Decentralized networks always face an awkward dilemma—when multiple node operators decide to collude, the entire trust system becomes vulnerable. For critical infrastructure like oracles, if a few nodes secretly conspire, they can collectively forge data and systematically manipulate on-chain information to profit.

Seemingly straightforward solutions are actually quite fragile. Increasing staking requirements? Adding more voting nodes? These measures are basically ineffective against organized collusion—if the majority participating in voting is itself a community, then the voting system becomes a mere formality.

Interestingly, some project designs do not attempt to completely eliminate collusion risk but instead make collusion a losing proposition. Through clever economic game theory and multi-layered checks and balances, they push the cost of collusion to astronomical levels while making the potential gains uncertain and risky. Ultimately, rational node operators will do their own calculations: honest operation offers stable and reliable returns, while the cost and risk of collusion are too high and the rewards too slim, making it unnecessary to take the risk.

The core idea of this approach is not just a simple punishment mechanism but ensuring proper separation of powers and mutual checks and balances at the system design level. For example, the operation of an oracle can be divided into several independent layers: data collection layer, validation and arbitration layer, dispute resolution layer. Each layer has different responsibilities and limited authority, and effective collusion would require coordinating multiple different roles, which increases the difficulty exponentially. No matter how many nodes are in a single layer, they cannot shake the entire structure.

The brilliance of this design lies in its acknowledgment that bad actors will always exist in reality, but through institutional design, the incentives for malicious behavior become extremely unprofitable.

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.

11 Likes

Reward
11
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BTCRetirementFund

· 4h ago

Wow, someone finally explained this thoroughly. I used to think that relying solely on "multi-signature" to prevent collusion was too naive. --- The economic model is the real key. Merely increasing the number of nodes is useless; bad actors need to be unable to calculate the costs. --- The layered checks and balances are brilliant. The coordination costs among multiple roles explode, so no one is willing to do it. --- In simple terms, it’s about forcing the malicious actors’ returns to become negative—an ingenious design. --- I've long known that voting systems are paper tigers in the face of organized collusion. This summary explains it very clearly. --- The core still lies in the incentive mechanism. A good or bad design will naturally cause people to change their behavior. --- The division of power is truly something Web3 should learn from. It’s not just about creating a DAO and voting. --- No wonder some projects run for so long without being manipulated; it turns out the underlying design is so well-crafted. --- Instead of blocking, it’s better to make collusion unprofitable—brilliant idea.

View OriginalReply0

gas_fee_trauma

· 4h ago

In simple terms, it's about crushing the bad guys' malicious intentions on the economic ledger, which is much more reliable than simply increasing punishments. The multi-layered checks and balances system is indeed clever. After all, human nature is like this—when costs are high and benefits are low, people will ultimately choose to operate honestly and obediently. That said, how many projects can truly achieve this... Most are still stacking on top of each other. This design idea is quite interesting; finally, someone has figured out how to untie this deadlock. Checks and balances are always more effective than mere defense—Economics 101.

View OriginalReply0

ImpermanentSage

· 4h ago

It still comes down to trusting people with multi-signature... Staking this set is essentially useless in front of the wealthy, no matter how many nodes there are, they can't withstand a united front. This part of economic gaming is indeed clever, but the problem is that in reality, someone can always find an arbitrage opportunity unless the costs can truly be made infinite. The idea of hierarchical segmentation is good, but I'm afraid they'll come up with new tricks to crack it later... In crypto, there's always a higher level of magic than the one you master. This set of theories sounds good, but the key is how long it can be maintained in actual operation. Buying at a loss? Sounds nice, but as long as there's enough profit there, someone will naturally be willing to take the risk.

View OriginalReply0

TokenomicsTherapist

· 4h ago

Honestly, this set of checks and balances is a bit harsh. Instead of plugging loopholes, it's better to make it impossible for bad actors to calculate the accounts. I really buy into the multi-layered checks and balances; it's much more effective than simply adding staking or increasing the number of nodes. It seems like a perfect architecture, but the key is who will actually isolate these layers—that's the real test. Economic games are indeed smarter than punitive mechanisms; everyone is rational, and no one will do a losing business. The trust dilemma of oracles boils down to a design issue, not a technical one. This article hits the point perfectly.

View OriginalReply0

MindsetExpander

· 4h ago

This is true game theory, much more reliable than projects that just shout slogans. --- The whole concept of collusion cost is basically making the bad guys' wallets speak for themselves. --- The idea of power separation is brilliant; multi-level checks and balances can indeed block collusion. --- I used to wonder how staking penalties could solve the problem, but now I see it's too naive haha. --- The key is designing economic incentives well; honest operation automatically becomes the optimal choice, clever! --- Finally, someone has explained it thoroughly; many projects are still just playing around with oracles. --- It still needs to be multi-layered; simply increasing the number of nodes can't prevent organized attacks. --- I respect this logic; when the cost-benefit ratio changes, rational nodes will naturally behave honestly. --- In the long run, system design is more reliable than any security propaganda.

View OriginalReply0

ForkInTheRoad

· 5h ago

This is exactly what I've been wanting to see—admitting that bad actors exist and then letting them settle their own accounts is not cost-effective. Compared to those idealistic "trust" models, economic game theory is much more reliable. --- The multi-layer segmentation trick is indeed ruthless; it requires collusion across the entire chain, which instantly drives up costs. --- In simple terms, it turns collusion from a technical problem into an economic one. When nodes see that the benefits and risks don't match, no one will be foolish enough to do it. --- Wait, can this logic be extended to other oracle projects? Or is it only suitable for those with particularly well-designed systems? --- Finally, someone has said it: the previous arguments that "adding nodes makes it safe" are really naive. --- Checks and balances are much more effective than punishments; after all, not everyone is afraid of being penalized. --- This idea is good, but in reality, can such perfect layering really be achieved? It still feels like there will be vulnerabilities.

View OriginalReply0