Oct 2026· Blockchains· Vol 4, pp. 21· 0 citations· 21 references
TL;DR
The Oracle Manipulation Index is defined, it is proved that shifting the aggregate by δ while one honest feed survives forces the unnormalized cross-feed price range to be at least δ/L for L-Lipschitz aggregators, and it is measured on a Foundry mainnet fork that a 0.1% move requires about USD 50 M in deployed capital.
Abstract
A common worry about depeg predictors is that an adversary who manipulates oracle prices can blind them. We test it on a new multi-source corpus of twelve historical stress episodes across nine assets and three chains. Under retrospective leave-one-event-out testing, the reconstructed models span 0.558–0.772 ROC-AUC, with our reference predictor at 0.762; the source papers report different metrics and tasks that are not directly comparable. Manipulable price features hurt out-of-event generalization: on the seven-episode live-feed subgroup, retained features reach 0.75 AUC versus 0.72 for the full model, directional, not significant at seven events. We define the Oracle Manipulation Index (OMI), prove that shifting the aggregate by δ while one honest feed survives forces the unnormalized cross-feed price range to be at least δ/L for L-Lipschitz aggregators, and measure on a Foundry mainnet fork (Curve 3pool, block 25,238,878) that a 0.1% move requires about USD 50 M in deployed capital. Excluding individually affordable channels gives a sufficient input-invariance rule under fixed channel costs; the robust subset matches clean accuracy and degrades less under tested synthetic attacks in point estimate (directional, not significant at seven events). OMI’s empirical lift is modest and regime-dependent (pooled 0.0037, not significant; it helps off-chain and multi-venue settings, not single-venue on-chain ones), and precision is low (about 33 false-positive windows per true-positive window at 10% recall). Within this early-warning setting, oracle manipulation is a weak evasion vector because the tested subset is empirically less sensitive to the evaluated perturbations.
Can a token’s collapse be predicted from design parameters fixed at launch, before it has market history? We compile on-chain data for 155 tokens (79 survived, 76 collapsed) and benchmark seven classifiers under leave-one-out cross-validation. Random Forest attains the highest area under the curve (AUC; 0.909; nested c...
Jesús Gil Ruiz, Rafael Muñoz Gil, Diego Rubén Rodríguez Regadera· Journal of Risk and Financia...· 0 citations
Agentic research loops that let a language model propose a change, run a fixed experiment and keep whatever improves the metric work well in machine learning. In trading research the same loop is a machine for producing false discoveries: a backtest that"improves the metric"is, by default, overfit, look-ahead, a multip...
This work introduces market signal injection (MSI), an attack that manipulates numerical formatting, competitor ordering, or qualitative market commentary without issuing explicit instructions to motivate defenses that account for interactions among agents.
Dohun Lee, Hyunwoo Park· Proceedings of the 11th Work...· 3 citations· ⚡1
Whether a language model was trained on a document matters for copyright, privacy, and benchmark contamination. Yet most membership-inference (MI) evaluations on language models collect members and non-members after the fact, so success may reflect distribution shift and failure is inconclusive. We re-ran OLMo 2 1B's o...
A. Banaei, Muhammad Shahzad, Gerald Q. Maguire et al.· 0 citations
OLIVIA, a protocol for point-in-time inputs with company identities masked, selection on validation data only, an analysis plan frozen by cryptographic hash, and a test period unblinded once through a logged lock is proposed.
A. Dehkordi, Alireza Kargarzadeh, Nariman Khaledian et al.· 0 citations
Portfolio use of machine predictions must often proceed while the predictions'economic direction, reliability, and timing remain untrusted, and while feedback from overlapping multi-period positions arrives with delay. A controller chooses among Safe, Follow, and Reverse portfolio actions, so signal orientation is lear...
Amirhossein MohammadpourAzari, Mohammad Zarei, MohammadAmin Fazli Sharif University of Technology et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.