Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
CFD
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Pre-IPOs
Unlock full access to global stock IPOs
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
Promotions
AI
Gate AI
Your all-in-one conversational AI partner
Gate AI Bot
Use Gate AI directly in your social App
GateClaw
Gate Blue Lobster, ready to go
Gate for AI Agent
AI infrastructure, Gate MCP, Skills, and CLI
Gate Skills Hub
10K+ Skills
From office tasks to trading, the all-in-one skill hub makes AI even more useful.
GateRouter
Smartly choose from 40+ AI models, with 0% extra fees
The Behind the Exchange's Anti-Witch Hunt Screening: Algorithm Design, Appeal Mechanisms, and the Battle of Data Science
【BitPush】Lighter Exchange’s anti-witch-hunting screening mechanism has recently sparked quite a bit of discussion. Founder and CEO Vladimir Novakovski recently shared the logic behind this system in a community interview.
Regarding the screening rules, he mentioned a key point: there is an appeal channel. If users feel they have been “wronged” by the algorithm, they can submit an appeal form on Discord, but the actual number of appeals is much lower than expected, which somewhat indicates that the system’s accuracy is decent. However, he also emphasized that the specific algorithm details will not be disclosed publicly—this is a practical decision, after all, no project wants its risk control logic to be exposed and then exploited.
Building the system involves a significant amount of technical work. Conventional data science operations like clustering analysis and behavior pattern recognition are all used. Interestingly, the quantitative team responsible for liquidity and market maker coordination was also brought in, spending several weeks participating in development. Additionally, they exchanged ideas with other protocols and individual witch-hunters who have done similar work.
They are confident in the final results. But at the same time, they also openly acknowledge—if there are indeed misjudgments, users are welcome to appeal through official channels. This attitude is still commendable.
I understand that the algorithm isn't public, but in that case, no one can verify whether it's truly "accurate" or not.
Quant teams have all been mobilized, it seems Lighter is serious this time... but I still want to see the real data.
Risk control is always a cat-and-mouse game; today's rules are cracked tomorrow.
No matter how perfect the anti-witch mechanism is, it's just a band-aid; the key still depends on the exchange's own risk tolerance.
Basically, they don't want us to know how to "target the treatment," which seems a bit like guarding against users.
Using clustering analysis and behavior recognition to filter out witches—could it end up punishing normal users too?
I understand the black-box algorithm approach, but what about those who are truly wronged? Can they just submit a form on Discord and resolve it?
Cluster analysis sounds professional when it comes to identifying witches, but who ultimately makes the decision?
Why does the quant team also need to get involved? Is there some trickery going on with liquidity?
Anyway, I just want to know if this mechanism at the contract level is truly transparent and verifiable.