# Simple "chainalytics" for xx chain

**URL:** <https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035>\
**Category:** General\
**Created:** [November 15, 2024, 3:31am UTC](https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035 "2024-11-15T03:31:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 16\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/user_avatar/forum.xx.network/rothbardian/32/818_2.png) [@rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/u/rothbardian)\
**Post date:** [November 15, 2024, 3:31am UTC](https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035/1 "2024-11-15T03:31:37Z")

</div>

I seem to recall there was a site where one could create certain analytical reports for addresses and other objects on XX chain.

Does anyone remember what that site URL was, or if it indeed existed?

My use case is address reputation of validators.

Our Explorer has ways to look up transactions, obviously, but if a series of steps one is required one has to do each one manually and copy-paste the outputs of one step into the inputs of another which isn’t very practical if such reports are to be created daily.

Alternatively, anyone know how to use the CLI (JS or Python) to find a validator’s history (nominees, commission, etc.)?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/user_avatar/forum.xx.network/rothbardian/32/818_2.png) [@rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/u/rothbardian)\
**Post date:** [November 18, 2024, 4:56am UTC](https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035/2 "2024-11-18T04:56:06Z")

</div>

Just a quick note that this is progressing based on a generic Substrate chain scanning approach and a piecemeal query-by-query fashion.

## Blocks

Since today is the 3rd anniversary, I’ll start with this:

```sql
select id,height,timestamp from block where height=1;
        id | height | timestamp        
------------------+--------+------------------------
 0000000001-163bf | 1 | 2021-11-17 07:01:36+00
(1 row)

```

## Validators

I’ve started working on info for my “validator wall of shame”.

This query shows a validator (no longer a validator today) who should never be nominated again. His commission was set 5 times, each times to nominator-hostile values. (The same query can also output date of changes, it’s just that I don’t do it in this particular example.)

```raw
===> Validator: 6WmCkeCRkPboK39iXNmd6DENBBDQL1MmUVZ7RNQm9y7tbD1j | Public key: 0x40c4d4de8d5e37f2c7eaef7043090468d393e74f2b8f22222b13583dc7600648
        Commission: 39.0000000000000000%
        Commission: 45.0000000000000000%
        Commission: 87.0000000000000000%
        Commission: 55.0000000000000000%
        Commission: 96.0000000000000000%

```

There are several with identical percentages which may be because they’re sock-puppets of the same puppet-master.

Are they? That remains to be seen… Eventually I’ll have address reputation queries as well. What happens on blockchain, stays on blockchain.

There are other relevant queries, such as cMix points per era, and so on.

Not everything works because of bugs and hard-to-find info, but it’s better than nothing.

## Other stuff

I’ve got several other things that work:

- Validator stake over time
- cMix stats
- Nominations
- Governance

In theory everything that you see in the XX Explorer should work here because all the info is there and from the chain, but in practice some details are encoded need to be “unpacked” which needs extra work to decode it, which is another nightmare when there’s not much to go by. I’m referencing various explorer engines from the Substrate ecosystem, etc.

Generating these on a 24x7 basis requires a $40/mo VM (and that’s for 1 user, the site itself) or maybe twice as much for multiple users making ad-hoc queries, so I don’t think I’ll have it running in the cloud and turn it into a free service.

Instead, I’m thinking about periodically publishing small posts in a xx Network Validator Wall of Shame series of blog posts, just to make sure the trash is easy to find in search engines and can’t hide behind Simple Staking. 😉

What about the good validators? If I manage to more info than just the highlights of the worst validators, maybe I’ll publish it on a token-gated Web site (i.e. not free) where I could combine this with a custom nomination script (another challenge) for subscribers.

But I’m not even close to that. For now I just hoping to get 3-4 posts out with the wallets of the worst and least engaged validators which would be useful for those who nominate manually.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/user_avatar/forum.xx.network/rothbardian/32/818_2.png) [@rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/u/rothbardian)\
**Post date:** [November 18, 2024, 5:06pm UTC](https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035/3 "2024-11-18T17:06:44Z")

</div>

PSA - some who’ve set \>30%

```raw
[['6VV6NTMTW9d3B61wLhytFaaT2GVciuPjL3kdWonJcJtmnhVj', 40],
 ['6XJH2V7dKdnDVDvGXEwg2TPpwFKMXdPzXSa8Evs3kieGbzUS', 45],
 ['6ZNu7cuHRYPb3HAT7MT6GxhevmfcmkUabGcmJwqW7AN5guhR', 45],
 ['6a4RW9onFhEV544wvXZmr2Cy52u3ke8YLtMwfQpYjNRCa6na', 48.5],
 ['6YfKFub7hHeavYrKSfWk626UYD46uwBePBeUvew2exu6123m', 50],
 ['6Z9N2M9FywpH1k3ycK2sAC9egyzAMVikeXJtaAPFkqWmd5Bf', 50],
 ['6ZH6qKPzphhm78S7PJ31FpANUWtmmxuKz36abwULEdo7kvvD', 50],
 ['6axK46dzxY3JHopeKVK3B2YoqSvgWCgvVvBnc5Tc2P3Hxh9K', 50],
 ['6VSrpiHJaSTUb45eSvWL6jsYkKHWoxES1j7BNRBpDnEbRsqn', 75],
 ['6X7UZg3etLuKryRQpnnjvrAz18TYUXF4b9BCuyq3Z1xiML1B', 85],
 ['6XCh5wgEDXHJCEmdvbnPR5niLfdus3aoHswRpCFzKnPEZPfz', 85],
 ['6XLpRoUiGZxeNrqV55fs8LNmYVcTMDDXtGyvPrfvMUdd7zvF', 85],
 ['6XSWwPdc3yYdcF84WbN2mUX3jP4hKQuFyN3d9sx7vF8TU2fV', 85],
 ['6XekHH7sP2JDNtyFBhoLCE5jS8Ci8FQzy3zq2ean6bZQfUDi', 85],
 ['6aWKU9GmbMNeGiVvu6AZW94GsgK6eL9Q3z6zxioVKasjgpfJ', 85],
 ['6ae2WJxJ5LqGab9PRhMDoC7mQtTjsyjsyjLeQmnTyqC8U1gS', 85],
 ['6XUbJWXYvDoieeg8zSCw3QQLQacndgfyZ8RTgJEbJMPmCeMi', 89],
 ['6ZNPt834Y88QrRrFqGCYfQzJX9aTGfprUE3Cx6dvH2i17kW8', 89],
 ['6ZtGJkrYNFh9v7Ht36pj3QoTakXSAvmSk7ngm9NkksuLR9GP', 89],
 ['6aYXj8Dn7RtGmAvKbNARCZ6fXZt7DfbTVeLzot9diE6GmHZr', 89],
 ['6VMsUUUHtvudQrchyUhcwLnv4BGpFDRBBT9YCx7mDTi1QP4m', 100],
 ['6VUyMXGMEA2ZZZ2PryHAbDc9RNLhnqX7uXPBXJaUQJxiBPjq', 100],
 ['6VkYiffpCNwireZhrdE6a4kpJJe8b25X6zeoceVspMvt5RxL', 100],
 ['6WY975E9rXCd6MK14wtXE2S9dCUYwLWVXpChnm4b5keCaiGw', 100],
 ['6WadK6mxKzdDZpd4BAyVmAp85Q1bfAHnhygkq6xmgros2GgV', 100],
 ['6WchMnestUBNwuwHpqYSZaYTmUx1Yiw34PrwNDipY3ea5aY5', 100],
 ['6WfFgy7BMAhFzSVXZjHeATBTcXMsGCmvvpRTvZD951wJZScf', 100],
 ['6WiGq2fwnmW6CdPfYvF9YBC2yjccSmA1YKGt4qjT1EHHp2PT', 100],
 ['6WrHVUFSbazCVf6NaYifoiQEeUkCNL1aJ8Q1dxj7tjgNDqL4', 100],
 ['6Wu3GcoTuvJFMhfosFQJWGzhocyaAB2PRURNJMfforK5CmWK', 100],
 ['6WvnYxX299FffA1WPcAshUpGSFsKbCJWZfMgBjW3dg3ZsgKM', 100],
 ['6X23oWBz1r6NwKbjNn4d5rwdZK4dyHXzyQiCkt3NN73Jdwkh', 100],
 ['6X2X8Vj9WzCZpsbULgTZfhHXMzW5yHdM8bMTwxVGfxewP7Gb', 100],
 ['6X35uN7hEEt9oYFXVwx6XKdK1vXrtCJDtqcWvSGq6mdPinxs', 100],
 ['6XJT8hi5Hwx4yVcqNN6LqQZwc8tzhekZnjU2i1RL8Tbeine8', 100],
 ['6XMQT4a1nCyoBivJx7iodkuXsizhEe21aqGqEghmXhWMbx2D', 100],
 ['6XPfhjfNBQxFzVrv4vmUNTBFGKxAimoyZ2vuP1mcaEhDkA8b', 100],
 ['6XS4Ezcu6aDamTp6pCxohxUE5H2RSmBieUkWyDPGfGjUD2wX', 100],
 ['6XcP5wJZRjYm3GC5PP6KKbPWFpMPQ6MfwGhDXkg5E9e5CZ6W', 100],
 ['6XfPjv3MVgwnhThq4hN4uWVNM43UAGwuXsGQnLrrnFXaBJYP', 100],
 ['6XkJ7YbKWSdkrF7wrWdWj59RWJrUummSsmi5B63V9HiE6MFP', 100],
 ['6XncXXHbNMFKUBVZRsEQdXdc8AQMWL1MMhFeN6zfv4iaFWvv', 100],
 ['6Xtb1AV2HFkHFyhatgMq3wP8CbtHa6fvBFM5aBU1eha4F71a', 100],
 ['6XyYpXtwdA43EA8G3C5HgCMpgSgrSmKSbeHZFv7WqBBUeigF', 100],
 ['6YPBMfr1wGTrKi6aY6zwTJaQXCZ5b6xEtuY4QkKzyr82Z3xN', 100],
 ['6YTxJTqieAevemm9hJ9CuhguyHHcSfxKyDQD8gNGtoyPXFZz', 100],
 ['6YZMPakVJGHN8kz7poXJycFkKkXVceJdTEaM12nEok1fSbqb', 100],
 ['6YZo6U9T4JLS88vp34EqBeFwSPThi57yQP9Ldx2v7xuwFH95', 100],
 ['6YcMdGnqqVEaw31cra8fCFQiusCpkayLwdBJCD12Fqo9UuYJ', 100],
 ['6YeUmeaVYJP6Qu3JbPSYQXnjJuzHvQNr5kbKmASH4XDXGYpD', 100],
 ['6Z7riEgEqcayxUWxEpx9BmDEpgQNpoDxcMwJ4betVJjUDMZf', 100],
 ['6ZHAWkQCDVjKSgQhNYV5Lh3S9nCNG2pvhb9XcJi7EjjW3H8u', 100],
 ['6ZZEoyQNppZq2srPHJmNKgKp3zXyB853sCie1fHQ7BbLCKJz', 100],
 ['6ZZEwjjn4BtjoEzmZMDCF75RR66jWDLkJRQyjPRXZe3fgVZX', 100],
 ['6ZfEoHA6sV2AQ9RPgFqsm3qpU7fgsq3qJRZZgHUX1yFuWJoX', 100],
 ['6ZhWprCgBVafRDW3sm93Y18LMDC4yupvkwsuQLSc1ub4ddMk', 100],
 ['6ZjLYuPEjyijRrPsyvqyADsFxtafuajWc8tZc7AVKhx35dMy', 100],
 ['6ZkVPjMdk4BDajL1nCsZ8hdowhKPcFSGRBsDRmEDxtqMLcDw', 100],
 ['6ZsRxNgJsmbk57TcC9pihDxZNRXBGe1sXBxWpsmbfUWEbjUD', 100],
 ['6ZxhncX1CYXAdoqykq2YQdW7kYELWNrkHsCMTwRqx9XtAd5q', 100],
 ['6a1V1Jo9mvhZMxM4gsKBJVaNNi3XH3i9uTu8PtGy9r8cMqQV', 100],
 ['6aC6FhxYBn5jdiZvcY5LXwdrm7brvhXt3qMf7aDMuVSc26oh', 100],
 ['6aH1TTa6G1itgwwN5kayyCRdTYRLmbK1wmRLZ6CZbmByAuXi', 100],
 ['6aN7ff2ynUvb5VjYAWetbNP7RpvCvKVUbGaKhLnPXnXTekTe', 100],
 ['6aZfKh9rphqbaaWJ1gBFw4JQ4rFsngDxfiiRDA4KTFPh3v2J', 100],
 ['6aj3wW7oRMSUFRd5NDAnys28keth1GvoYCuPanvjF9ivK73k', 100],
 ['6ajhb6wBcPaUKtCbW7TF3noKiQkxBYQVQ2qkZFEWurPkWhfN', 100],
 ['6arrMYMnGRVD4ukZggKoSE2NKmozuh84dEfeCWB29rUUaWiT', 100]]

```

Normally, wallets are hard to find in search engines, but I hope these **can be found** by using the forum’s search function so anyone who tries will find this one.

In the future controller wallet addresses of these validators (and more) may be shared as well so that people can find other sock-puppet validators set up by the same owner(s).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/user_avatar/forum.xx.network/rothbardian/32/818_2.png) [@rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/u/rothbardian)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2024, 7:31am UTC](https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035/4 "2024-11-19T07:31:47Z")

</div>

Another example, I ran this in **era 1098** so this is **just an example** of where I’m going with this.

```raw
Collected validators: 90
Name Return (%) Commission (7d avg) SS58                                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KIM-JE-DEOK 22.23 5.5 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6ZL9NXqophtrvFxDYf1k4ToJvPMp67sVZWFqTHTetiX1pqrG
LEE-WOO-SEOK 22.17 5.5 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6abksNA5dp8Gkz86EVC9BVYFWNRgpzT4bMNb3rAYosoL53W4
KIM-WOO-JIN 21.95 5.5 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YCuzDwkymNHTUFJ2AB6MjuDPF7HubdrLcjDmzbhrXPLMuuu
HAE-IN-SA 21.31 5.5 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6WnydqSSi7aJMZd99aW4yHjcduZsxMV7xnJ9v2tWfvcJosSC
SONG-GWANG-SA 21.02 5.5 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6a22YrSXwheE1zdgrVeVYJdXubYpj2CfBA28zgm6yVn3jTso
PETIT FOUR 20.6 2.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6WEaEfBWYKGYtT8MU1M9JQnopNXxNVDi8BTvjUuY9Rn5S8kV
CUPCAKE 20.33 2.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YA7iZLpRfoMsRD8zuZwyTFZS5VbKzxnFTHbwNwqy4UBQNj9
CHAMYUVA 20.07 11.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6aChc8idv5YKuWrsWWz62qfp5kvTALK83FXB6GVikfDDwX2F
CERES 19.93 9.99 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YC2oieX73fPiwShGgsPJ1SU5bpGCPFrp4uh9jWuCYwD9Ni6
BLOCKSHARD 19.74 16.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6Y58dmMN9H3FqvBzutdRTDA83q6uDFwBtQXpcpqzdh7hnm26
RADIANCE NODE 19.66 18.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6ZUXNuVhDJqBuMtjyzzexR53SYRoAHRE8Yr1zWMycGTMVZuU
SEAL_SENTY 19.44 14.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6W3C2vpUSXNgTXjDjBwN8kFB1w5p54gaMrN6aQZRNngQwKTA
VERTEX 19.08 13.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6XfZWcMorKzCFVXAvxzhUY5V5UGjucLuPCmdokBKAjGRAYQd
EYEZ 19.0 17.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YHzR5k7y6b5vnX2VuByeWzJnLaaye2LDGArpw3yWoZvSTiD

```

Notes:

- It’s sorted by Return (%) that you can see in the xx Wallet right now, but other sorting may be implemented later because ROI may be deceiving
- To spare you from scrolling, only \> 19% are shown here, but I list them all down to 15%.
- The commission column is also the same as in the wallet - it’s an average of last 7 eras, so someone who ran 6 at 2% and went nuts yesterday (99%) may look great (15% only!), but you’ll get screwed if you nominate him
- Wallet address for the on-chain ID is provided for easy basic checks before deciding whether or not to nominate

Wait, but where’s so-and-so?

- All nodes without on-chain ID are **not considered.** Currently only 88 out of 370 have an on-chain ID. Even many of those who do have an on-chain ID have nothing but 1 field (nothing else). At a later time I may look into that as well - those w/o a Discord or Haven ID may be dropped or deducted as well.
- Pool nodes are dropped automatically regardless of anything else. Have a nice day!
- Validators with more than 4 nodes - to the extent that I can tell who they are - are also dropped. I’m not sure about those Korea-based nodes, 3 and 2, respectively, may be owned by the same wallet, which IMO is fine, but if all 5 are the same guy hosting in 2 DCs, I’ll drop them (TBD).

 ![image](https://forum.xx.network/uploads/default/original/1X/aa7e7af6fd9160616f42cafca9be341a4e204cd8.png)

To-do items are mostly related to including non-obvious info because ROI and Commission don’t give a full picture, it’s 70% and I’d like to get to 90% as well as offer _an opinionated_ ranking:

- Filter out any node who charged \> 30% in last 6 months. I have that info, but need to do more data massaging
- Introduce a hybrid ranking - not ROI, not commission - where nodes with essential on-chain identity (e.g. Discord, Haven) and wallets that participate in governance (voting) get extra points. Need to look up these details in different places (I don’t even know where), so this will take time but shouldn’t be very hard.
- Address analytics - this is going to take even time… Just an idea for time being.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/user_avatar/forum.xx.network/rothbardian/32/818_2.png) [@rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/u/rothbardian)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2024, 10:57am UTC](https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035/5 "2024-11-21T10:57:48Z")

</div>

As I look at this, there isn’t much to like. Today these are:

- With on-chain ID
- With \< 25% commission
- Sorted in descending ROI

```raw
Name Return (%) Commission (7d avg) SS58                                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEE-WOO-SEOK 22.31 5.5 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6abksNA5dp8Gkz86EVC9BVYFWNRgpzT4bMNb3rAYosoL53W4
KIM-JE-DEOK 22.1 5.5 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6ZL9NXqophtrvFxDYf1k4ToJvPMp67sVZWFqTHTetiX1pqrG
SONG-GWANG-SA 22.1 5.5 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6a22YrSXwheE1zdgrVeVYJdXubYpj2CfBA28zgm6yVn3jTso
KIM-WOO-JIN 22.06 5.5 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YCuzDwkymNHTUFJ2AB6MjuDPF7HubdrLcjDmzbhrXPLMuuu
HAE-IN-SA 21.9 5.5 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6WnydqSSi7aJMZd99aW4yHjcduZsxMV7xnJ9v2tWfvcJosSC
CHAMYUVA 20.0 11.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6aChc8idv5YKuWrsWWz62qfp5kvTALK83FXB6GVikfDDwX2F
CERES 19.71 9.99 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YC2oieX73fPiwShGgsPJ1SU5bpGCPFrp4uh9jWuCYwD9Ni6
BLOCKSHARD 19.69 16.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6Y58dmMN9H3FqvBzutdRTDA83q6uDFwBtQXpcpqzdh7hnm26
RADIANCE NODE 19.69 18.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6ZUXNuVhDJqBuMtjyzzexR53SYRoAHRE8Yr1zWMycGTMVZuU
PETIT FOUR 19.32 2.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6WEaEfBWYKGYtT8MU1M9JQnopNXxNVDi8BTvjUuY9Rn5S8kV
SHELDON 19.07 17.5 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6aX9njNNh2MvWjLofPBiSUMoUsyqg5K7WFv7WeytTts9yq8x
CUPCAKE 19.05 2.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YA7iZLpRfoMsRD8zuZwyTFZS5VbKzxnFTHbwNwqy4UBQNj9
NEWAY 18.97 12.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6aVwUBe8RTnN1UtsjBKr3gyWMqUGyDqDC8FoumMTe2HqNjHj
EXCALIBUR 18.85 16.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6VfsB3UxXfnz3EqJk12s5aiffeB8ePEqDXzc6MPBfwPTNcFh
VERTEX 18.85 13.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6XfZWcMorKzCFVXAvxzhUY5V5UGjucLuPCmdokBKAjGRAYQd
SPECTRUM 18.83 15.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YA9CzuJ7FL9Wd3iuRwfcYdyZCTkgtL9eMtuh4RJTtzMCLpr
BLOCKBARD 18.82 14.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6XceRx74wAmaK4sXeTr5kPVwjASLhutMVxEP6aWxBGPHbMLo
EYEZ 18.72 17.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6YHzR5k7y6b5vnX2VuByeWzJnLaaye2LDGArpw3yWoZvSTiD
NODE0311 18.72 14.0 https://wallet.xx.network/#/staking/query/6WfVqSzGvcmSzYuWPBywqvKwzUvEJtzBbyQ66qiTCN4LxQa4

```

What’s not to like?

Well, for starters, **ALL** top 5 are likely the same validator (see blockchain transactions in [here](https://explorer.xx.network/accounts/6XCxcrkFft34ETpH4nJM8e3jAV2DyUKE8aUmaAe9Pq1ktwke)).  
I’ve nothing against individuals running multiple nodes, but not more than 4. This guy appears to have 5, so … Afuera!

 ![image](https://forum.xx.network/uploads/default/original/1X/942f29d32ff5fae7873546962c5e6089378697db.jpeg)

Next, `CHAMYUVA`. It doesn’t take long to see he’s connected to `CERES` (incidentally, right after him on the list). Who knows how many nodes… Afuera!

`BLOCKSHARD` and `RADIANCE NODE` seem okay.

`PETIT FOUR` seems related to `CHIAMERA` (another validator, not in the list), `CUPCAKE` (in the list), etc. All of them: afuera!

Go down the list, nothing changes. Some 80% may be running multiple nodes (again, fine) **but** not disclosing that on-chain ( **NOT** fine). And they may have 5 or more, which I haven’t tried to find out because there’s nothing I can do about it in any case.

Nodes **without** an on-chain ID (which I eliminated up-front) are generally even worse, because while those with IDs aren’t disclosing, many aren’t trying to hide, whereas some of those without on-chain IDs are actively trying to avoid those simple checks.

So, to sum it up, after few hours of work I disqualified almost 100% of nodes:

- first I removed those without on-chain ID (most of those are similarly fishy, obviously centrally managed)
- then I removed all with \> 25% commission
- At this point 84 out of 370 left. Then I sorted (descending) according to the ROI and looked at first 20-30
- Approximately ~80% of those got rated `Afuera`

(84/370) - 80% is less than 5%.

I also looked at those in Waiting, thinking there are some deserving, hard-working validators there. Mostly very poor quality, some scammers, and 2-3 bottom feeders (some never did any cMixx-ing, just the blockchain part).

In conclusion, if you care just about your ROI as a nominator, there’s value in easy filtering and some DIY “analytics”.  
If you care about the ROI _as well as_ the network, it’s probably better to run 1 to 4 nodes on your own, make that transparent in on-chain identity, run them at a reasonable commission, and help kick out some of those undisclosed validators, centralized pools and crooks from active validation pool. You’ll also make more than nominating these groups I just mentioned.

The network has to improve this situation before it gets out of hand, so there’s some work to be done by the Council here…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/user_avatar/forum.xx.network/rothbardian/32/818_2.png) [@rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/u/rothbardian)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2024, 2:44pm UTC](https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035/7 "2024-11-21T14:44:36Z")

</div>

> [@warnings](#):
>
> And why? Because “maybe” there’s a link between these validators = bad validators?

🤡

 ![image](https://forum.xx.network/uploads/default/original/1X/28519248b1c02f93d78948de0ddc0362507eafc2.png)

What do you think these 1K XX amounts are for? Nutritional supplements?

And then you wonder why no one takes you seriously…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bradford](https://forum.xx.network/user_avatar/forum.xx.network/bradford/32/32_2.png) [@bradford](https://forum.xx.network/u/bradford)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2024, 10:47pm UTC](https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035/8 "2024-11-21T22:47:54Z")

</div>

Sorry, I’m not seeing what you’re pointing out with that screenshot.

Regarding your analytics, a cheap resource (if you’re running a full chain locally) would be to use your analytics scripts once an era then publish the results to github as a static site that will allow some nice ways to view ‘bad actors’. Free hosting.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/user_avatar/forum.xx.network/rothbardian/32/818_2.png) [@rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/u/rothbardian)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 4:19am UTC](https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035/10 "2024-11-22T04:19:42Z")

</div>

> [@warnings](#):
>
> Like you see most probably for launch a validator and what is the issue ?

The issue is you won’t transfer 1,101 XX (enough to stake a validator) and then - as if another 1K XX would help you get elected - transfer 1.000.50 XX. What may two 1K XX transfers be about?

> [@bradford](#):
>
> Sorry, I’m not seeing what you’re pointing out with that screenshot.

It shows that the account runs a validator farm. Should be obvious, does it really require an explanation? As I said `PETIT FOUR` is connected to `CHIMAERA` and other validators. Now are we to believe they just happen to be friends who know each other and transfer coins among validator accounts for fun?

 ![image](https://forum.xx.network/uploads/default/original/1X/3f372c7a2ee9ddf1eb85712aa335817e921eaed9.png)

Or this one - which I didn’t want to single out because it’s too obvious. Could these validators be related? Or one guy shuffling coins among his farm nodes? Could it be a series of typos over the years while using xx Network wallet?

 ![image](https://forum.xx.network/uploads/default/original/1X/fc19e14c9faa9712be968c7800d55c56a02f80f0.png)

> [@warnings](#):
>
> Like you see most probably for launch a validator and what is the issue ?

The issue is it’s not **a** validator, it’s a damn farm. Let me know if you need me to repeat this for you for the 3rd time.

> [@warnings](#):
>
> I don’t think that’s the case if they offer good rewards, don’t mess with commissions they’re good validators.

Well, maybe I should stand up 8 nodes with 5% commission and be a good validator. Will you nominate my farm?

> [@warnings](#):
>
> If this validator actually run with 1k, he most probably have 300k from nominators who trust him so what is the point ?

 ![image](https://forum.xx.network/uploads/default/original/1X/f9cb312ff474bae670060e37cb8cd354a012c03b.jpeg)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/user_avatar/forum.xx.network/rothbardian/32/818_2.png) [@rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/u/rothbardian)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 5:13am UTC](https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035/12 "2024-11-22T05:13:04Z")

</div>

> [@warnings](#):
>
> First : why “you” ?

Colloquial for “one”

> [@warnings](#):
>
> Second : why send 2k if 1k is enough like this validator stake only 1k ?

Second: because it’s meant to be enough for 2 sock-puppet nodes.

> [@warnings](#):
>
> Third : why the first wallet detain for sure the second for you ? You prefer people who wash coin to Mexc by example ?

I said several times: I don’t care how people move their coins, I only care that they don’t ruin the network by running a farm of 5 or more sock-puppet nodes, especially without any disclosure in on-chain IDs, which is **malicious** by default.

And, since you obviously haven’t don any research and randomly shitpost, you may want to take a look at the account _from which_ `Petit Four` got his funds (you can now ask “why his?” and I will answer in my next post), `6WwABnWwmUYRppZHRcDBr62AEP12Hd4uREoHnuU9HP4DBPft` who did, in fact, launder that 1K through MEXC.

But why make any checks when that may mess up your baseless arguments?

To illustrate the extent of your nonsense arguments, **even the other account** (and there’s just two, so it’s not like you may have checked other 5 and gotten unlucky) which sent funds to `PETIT FOUR` (`6a9FTqCH1eFihuFp1n2GwwqqTS6uwXzDkF8haM3pYphrr5NP`) has been involved in node-puppeteering.

 ![image](https://forum.xx.network/uploads/default/original/1X/46fb59828759b31e3ea2599a3e261994424f04b6.png)

The level of ignorance and intellectual laziness you display in these discussions is absolutely astonishing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/user_avatar/forum.xx.network/rothbardian/32/818_2.png) [@rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/u/rothbardian)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 5:28am UTC](https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035/13 "2024-11-22T05:28:19Z")

</div>

> [@bradford](#):
>
> Regarding your analytics, a cheap resource (if you’re running a full chain locally) would be to use your analytics scripts once an era then publish the results to github as a static site that will allow some nice ways to view ‘bad actors’. Free hosting.

Yes, that’s a low-cost (or free, as in this case) plan - without the ability to create custom/ad-hoc SQL queries… Just create a subset of data and post it there as a flat file with a JS front-end. Another option would be post a CSV or JSON blob to S3, so that I don’t have to build a front-end and that people could import in their own app (e.g. dump and import to Excel) or use from own front-end without even downloading or going to my site.

But I’m discouraged to pursue this now that I realize looking for “best” validators makes little sense as many of those are just sock-puppet nodes running by potentially bad actors - it’s probably better for hodlers to stand up additional nodes (as long as it’s \< 5) and nominate/pitch those.

I’m now thinking of taking an activist path, to highlight and promote known-good nodes (to the extent that it can be determined, which won’t be 100%) and look for any good nodes “all known good nodes above 14% ROI” rather than “best 50 nodes by performance”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/user_avatar/forum.xx.network/rothbardian/32/818_2.png) [@rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/u/rothbardian)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 5:57am UTC](https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035/16 "2024-11-22T05:57:18Z")

</div>

> [@warnings](#):
>
> You still don’t know if it’s the same people behind or not.

And I don’t care - I’ll simply not recommend any of associated nodes, or nominate them myself. If I want to nominate an honest node, I’ll nominate my own and 3-4 other nodes from old validators whom I checked and found to be okay.

Now, you don’t know it’s **not** the same people. So what kind of argument is that???

What is the most likely explanation for validators shuffling 1K amounts among validator (not some generic/derived) wallets, or for someone getting 3K XX from MEXC and seeding it among 3 validators? 🤡

> [@warnings](#):
>
> Do you understand that anyone can put a “bond-do-sa” ID on their validator and have no connection with the other one people ?

No, I don’t, because I don’t understand the scenario in which multiple validators shuffle “minimum bond amount” among their wallets if it’s not the same validator and different nodes.

Tell us if you don’t mind - how many times since 2021 have you sent 1K XX to other validators using your stash or validator wallet?  
And do you run 5 or more nodes by any chance?

> [@warnings](#):
>
> And I don’t see any “6Zsym6uKVnQdPbyDuCREpb32FDXspG5C2zeoBhS5yTSgrkKc” who is the Mexc address.

You don’t see it, or it’s not an MEXC address?

You can see it here, it’s had \> 92 transfers. It’d better be an MEXC address because other possible explanations are even worse.

> **[Blockchain Explorer](https://explorer.xx.network/accounts/6ZbmUc2MFHLp9wsxgJgPPx3r4GYqFETbWYCaQ484bADFntJB)**
>
> xx network web app to display indexed blockchain data

> [@warnings](#):
>
> You seem like a judge, but you have no idea how money works. A transaction doesn’t equal the same person, no matter what you think.

I never said it equals, I said it’s likely.

Over the past 3 years I’ve sent 0 XX to other validators. I’ve no business sending anyone non-trivial amounts (i.e. 5 XX or 50 XX community tips) of tokens. Do you? Can you share some of these common transaction patterns between wallet addresses not involved in node puppeteering?

If a validator made 3 outgoing 1,105.00 XX transactions to new wallets who then became validators, I don’t have to be a genius to see what’s **likely** to be going on there.

> [@warnings](#):
>
> When you go to the supermarket and buy something, you’re not tied to the supermarket and where the supermarket take its product. You have different person even if they are only two transactions and seem the same people from history view.

That’s completely wrong example. What business do I have receiving or sending 1,005 XX from/to a validator (except once, when we had that transition where everyone stopped validating and switched to another wallet)?

There’s no swaps on the network, there’s nothing validators sell for XX, so it’s not anyone selling something and the other party paying for it.

I don’t know what you’re trying to prove and why.

- First, all your attempts are miserable failures.
- Second, at this point I don’t care what you think about _my_ analysis of validators. I replied to your comments with solid answers, your provided yours (which I think were laughable) and there’s little new info to be added after several back-and-forth exchanges.
- Third, this thread is about analysis of validator behavior, not about some Council motion or Democracy proposal that impacts anyone. I said I looked at many validators, found that most suck, and recommended that people who care about the network stand up their own (and, right on cue, you come in here arguing **against** that idea, whereas everywhere else and over years you want people to become validators): **pools good, community validators who transparent ID their nodes on the network bad**. Can’t make this up!!!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/user_avatar/forum.xx.network/rothbardian/32/818_2.png) [@rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/u/rothbardian)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 7:49am UTC](https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035/20 "2024-11-22T07:49:12Z")

</div>

> [@warnings](#):
>
> Ok have may be two running nodes and what ? It’s still less than 18 or 20 so why target them in particular ? What have you against these two validators ?

So you’ve checked all these related addresses and know it’s just 2 and not 6. Good to know!

And running multiple nodes without disclosing it on-chain identity is apparently okay, because nominators don’t need to know about that (unless they engage in forensic chainalytics). Very reasonable expectation for a privacy-focused network!

> [@warnings](#):
>
> I should really explain you how generate a unique wallet address and buy coins for send them to this brand new wallet ?

Right, so you bought coins on MEXC, and transferred them to your validator wallet.

You didn’t transfer coins to **a** validator wallet, and then ask that validator to transfer to your wallet.  
Or you didn’t send the coins from MEXC to a “temp” wallet and from there to two other wallets of yours.  
Or ask a validator friend to use his MEXC account to transfer XX to his wallet because you couldn’t open a MEXC account to buy XX and transfer proceeds back when you need to pay for hosting expenses.

> [@warnings](#):
>
> I think you are someone dangerous for yourself, for the whole XX network and for the other who is the most dangerous !

I confess, I’ve watched this video.

 ![image](https://forum.xx.network/uploads/default/original/1X/6e9a3c6ddd81f06b5f801c55c04a65b5e28d658b.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/user_avatar/forum.xx.network/rothbardian/32/818_2.png) [@rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/u/rothbardian)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 8:12am UTC](https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035/22 "2024-11-22T08:12:52Z")

</div>

> [@warnings](#):
>
> I not check anything because I will not lost my time for check any validators. I just don’t care at all. But you look that and have the conclusion to not nominate anyone.

If you haven’t done any work, why not post less arguments against specifics and argue or more abstract points?

Instead, you defend these bad actors and get proven wrong at every step.

> [@warnings](#):
>
> You call that forensic looking transactions and dream about what they mean ?

Says a man who couldn’t be bothered to check anything **at all** and who elsewhere claims nominators need an easier way to find good validators.

And yet, validators aren’t supposed to pseudo-ID themselves on-chain because it’s trivial to look at blockchain transactions of each node you want to consider… Got it!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/user_avatar/forum.xx.network/rothbardian/32/818_2.png) [@rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/u/rothbardian)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 10:10am UTC](https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035/24 "2024-11-22T10:10:20Z")

</div>

> [@warnings](#):
>
> You have the exact number of unique IP inside the network.

It took me 5 minutes to write a script for that. There’s 309 unique IPv4 addresses in this era.

> [@warnings](#):
>
> Now the damage has been done not by me but by yourself inviting anyone doing that now. Most probably the majority not know that. You understand what you do ?

That’s hilarious. In the previous comment in this very same thread you said my writing about this involved a trivial level of insight and laughed off the use of the word “chainalytics”.  
Now in this comment you’re hinting at that what I wrote about should be treated as “confidential”. Which is it?

Any SecOps or chainalytics hobbyist already has all these tools and scripts (e.g. developed for Kusama or other Substrate-based chain) ready to run - they don’t need anyone’s help. All info is on XX chain or otherwise available to hundreds of people out there, including adversaries.

The reason why I haven’t even started doing any real “chainalytics” is that, sadly, I’ve seen enough by simply looking in the Explorer - didn’t even need to do graph analysis or look at the nodes w/o on-chain ID (the ones with were brazen enough).

For whatever reason, I’ve put in the work and time and you did not. And now there’s info out there to (roughly) understand the extent of this problem, and fix it.  
For the record, as I’ve maintained throughout this topic, it’s a growing problem, but not a big problem: we have several non-transparent multi-node validators with 5 or more nodes, and we have several centralized pools. Both can be easily be dealt with, if xx Network finds that necessary.

I’ll keep highlighting these problems.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/user_avatar/forum.xx.network/rothbardian/32/818_2.png) [@rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/u/rothbardian)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 4:16pm UTC](https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035/26 "2024-11-22T16:16:16Z")

</div>

> [@warnings](#):
>
> You are able to understand what is the security red line to not cross for any reason ?

I haven’t been warned by admins, so I think I’m on the right track. I’ve shared nothing but - paraphrasing what you said earlier - superficial, low quality facts from public sources (which is precisely why we have blockchains, to allow and encourage free inquiry.)

xx Network has a history of openness and allows substantiated discussions of this nature (e.g. early discussions about the broken PQ algo).

> [@warnings](#):
>
> I will ask the community to all rename their validators Cryptocalibur XX just for fun.

Meh. They’d have to have similar validator stakes, node locations, commissions and more, so it won’t fool even most careless xx Network Wallet users, let alone anyone who checks on the details.

The idea about KYC is a good one, maybe the Council should take that into consideration?

> [@warnings](#):
>
> do my job by sending a PRIVATE message directly to the people concerned by that.

xx Batman!

> [@warnings](#):
>
> What you would fix exactly if this problem has been already catch long time ago and nothing has been done by the people in charge ?

Maybe we wouldn’t have these problems if you didn’t campaign so hard for ever lower validator stakes, standards and criteria, as if the goal was to recreate eurozone on blockchain.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/user_avatar/forum.xx.network/rothbardian/32/818_2.png) [@rothbardian](https://forum.xx.network/u/rothbardian)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 5:02pm UTC](https://forum.xx.network/t/simple-chainalytics-for-xx-chain/7035/28 "2024-11-22T17:02:03Z")

</div>

There’s nothing on topic of chain or validator analytics in there, so I’ll just ignore that last reply. Sorry!