Ethereum Trading Bot Malfunctions, Shoots Up Gas Fees by 1700% Paying Over $580,000 in Costs
This week, an unlucky user of the Ethereum network incurred abnormally high transaction fees after the malfunctioning of the blockchain’s crypto trading bot. Many were surprised after the said user paid 3,990 ETH (approximately $584,000) to facilitate a few transactions.
The first entity to notice the anomaly was the Amberdata analytics company. The gas price soared by 1700%, resulting in the highest transaction fees in the history of the Ethereum blockchain. After a thorough inspection, it was found that the oddity originated from a single address.
Initially, Amberdata preempted that the persons behind the unusual activity wanted to launder money. This hypothesis was proven wrong after they discovered that the fee had been distributed to various mining pools, including Sharkpool, Ethermine and Nanopool and so on.
Another noticeable irregularity was that the amount ETH sent by the affected user was equivalent to the corresponding gas fee in each transaction. This lead to the assumption that the developer behind the involved trading bot made a coding error. Precisely, they might have confused the files demarking transaction amounts and gas fees.
Besides Amberdata, Sharkpool also confirmed the awry incident. The mining pool received 2,100 ETH (approximately $300,000). They also confirmed that the funds have been withheld until the rightful owner is identified, after which they will deliberate on what to do next.
Similar to other blockchains, the Ethereum network is immutable. However, there is a provision for canceling a transaction if the involved parties notice any anomaly. This particular incident raises questions because all of the transactions were confirmed.
While Sparkpool has openly declared the freezing of the contentious transaction fees until the owner is found, it remains unclear whether the other mining pools will follow suit. It is also worth noting that Sparkpool has a timeframe in which the owner should establish contact. Failure to do so would mean that the fees would be distributed to the members of the mining pool.