Gate「LA Spike Door」: Why Are Users Outraged?
Recently, Gate has been embroiled in controversy due to the $LA/USDT contract experiencing an abnormal 'spike'.
Multiple users have accused Gate of manipulation during the dramatic price fluctuations of the contract, leading to many users experiencing abnormal liquidations and even negative balances, resulting in significant losses.
Although Gate has responded regarding the cause of the incident and compensation plans, community users seem unconvinced.
Let's review this incident:👇
💣
Incident Review: A 4-Minute Terrifying 'Spike'
June 4th, 8 PM: Gate launched the $LA/USDT perpetual contract.
4 minutes after the opening: The price soared from $0.36 to $27 (+7400%), then plummeted to $0.2 (other exchanges' spot prices remained stable around $1).
This resulted in a large number of users being liquidated, with KOL @Elizabethofyou losing 20,000 USDT, and @BTC_Alert_ owing the platform 120,000 USDT.
Users accused the platform of tampering with order data (e.g., 4994 USDT → 49.94 USDT).
Gate delisted the contract and promised to compensate for negative balances (total compensation of 30 million USDT).
So, why are community users unconvinced? There are three main points of contention:
1. Double Standards in Compensation: Why compensate for negative balances but not for liquidations?
Gate's explanation: Liquidation is a 'normally triggered rule', while negative balance is considered 'additional compensation by the platform'.
Users rebutted: The abnormal price was caused by a failure in the platform's data source, and all losses should be compensated.
2. Ambiguity in the Cause of the Incident: Data source anomaly or human manipulation?
Gate stated 'index source failure + risk control failure', but refused to disclose specific logs.
On-chain data shows: Prices of $LA were stable on other exchanges, while Gate exhibited extreme fluctuations.
3. Crisis Public Relations Backfire.
AMA was limited to English: Ignoring the primary victim group of Chinese users.
Refused to allow users to speak: Accused of avoiding key issues.
⚖️
CEX's 'Original Sin': The Deadlock of Transparency vs. Efficiency
Black box operation risks: CEX order books are opaque, easily questioned for spikes or wash trading (e.g., SEC report states that some CEXs have wash trading proportions exceeding 30%).
Risk control loopholes: High leverage contracts + centralized clearing, making users 'prey' in extreme market conditions.
Compensation Mystique: Compensating for negative balances but not for liquidations—an industry rule or a platform's scapegoat?
Comparing to DEX: On-chain transactions are fully traceable (e.g., Uniswap), but liquidity depth and speed are still inferior to CEX.
