I copied the bottom of the liquidated NFT, but was locked by opensea

7 month 26 Japan ,NFT  Collectors zamunda.eth Yu tweeted about his recent bad experience .

Three months ago ,zamunda.eth Purchased with number #3243 Of CrypToadz NFT, Nothing has happened for months , But today zamunda.eth But suddenly found out  OpenSea  To the NFT Added “ Suspicious activity ” identification , Affected by this zamunda.eth Will not be able to OpenSea Hang an order to sell the NFT（ Other trading platforms can be used normally ）.

After some investigation ,zamunda.eth To discover OpenSea The person who submitted the report was this NFT Once a holder （ We'll call him “ A violent temper ” Well ）.“ A violent temper ” I was in NFT Lending platform  NFTfi  Mortgage multiple high values NFT And lent encrypted assets , But when the agreed repayment period comes , But failed to fulfill the repayment obligation in time （ Maybe the bottom has been copied ）, So these NFT Collateral has also entered the liquidation and sale process ,zamunda.eth It is one of the takeovers of this wave of sales .

thereafter , Lost everything NFT Of “ A violent temper ” In a rage OpenSea Submitted a large number of targeted reports , This currently also includes targeting CrypToadz #3243 Report of ,OpenSea After acceptance, it will be given to the relevant NFT Hit it. “ Suspicious activity ” identification .

It is worth mentioning that ,“ A violent temper ” One of them involves BAYC The deal is right NFTfi Brought a lawsuit . But just zamunda.eth Later revealed , There are differences in details between the two transactions （NFTfi The terms of each loan transaction are different , It needs to be negotiated and unified by both parties ）,BAYC In related transactions NFTFi There is indeed a certain suspicion of breach , But about CrypToadz #3243 In this transaction , towards “ A violent temper ” The borrower even extended the repayment time , but “ A violent temper ” But again default .

zamunda.eth Finally, it means ,OpenSea Don't ask any reason , Only according to “ A violent temper ” Malicious retaliation on the freeze related NFT, This has caused real damage to the interests of buyers .

Simply touch down the five subjects involved in this matter , The order of appearance is ：

• “ A violent temper ”, these NFT Former holder.

• Lending platform NFTfi, The platform allows both parties to execute transactions according to the negotiated agreement . The borrower can mortgage NFT Temporarily borrow a certain amount of working capital , Repayment at the arrival of the agreed period （ And pay interest ） And retrieve NFT; The lender can recover the loan and obtain interest income when the agreed period comes , If the borrower cannot repay smoothly , The lender has the right to control （ delay or Liquidation ） As collateral NFT;NFTfi As an intermediate platform , Be responsible for trusteeship through smart contracts during the agreed period NFT.

• Passerby Lender , That is to lend “ A violent temper ” Users of funds , That is, he chose to cancel after being breached many times “ A violent temper ” The right of redemption , Yes CrypToadz #3243 Liquidation has been carried out .

• OpenSea, trading platform , It was also frozen later CrypToadz #3243 The platform of .

• zamunda.eth, Answer man .

Odaily Star daily ：NFTfi Some repayment details

Now the situation is ,zamunda.eth As an ordinary NFT Collectors , Without knowing it, I bought CrypToadz #3243, Because of “ Suspicious activity ” Identity cannot be in OpenSea Sell this normally NFT, Its interests have actually been infringed .

Why does this happen ？

• First of all “ A violent temper ”, If zamunda.eth Your words are true （ For the time being, there is only unilateral statement ）,“ A violent temper ” Obviously, it is the main responsible party , Deliberately report due to loan default , As a result, it no longer belongs to itself NFT Restricted circulation , It's really not authentic .

• The second is NFTfi, As a lending platform , There is nothing wrong with its business operation . The real problem is ,NFTfi It seems that the whole liquidation execution process has not been OpenSea As a normal transaction , But according to “ A violent temper ” The report of is regarded as suspicious activity .

• Then there are passers-by lenders , As “ A violent temper ” Your opponent , He once extended the repayment deadline , Choose the liquidation route when the borrower still hasn't repaid the money , be perfectly logical and reasonable .

• And finally OpenSea, As the largest NFT trading platform ,OpenSea A relatively strict risk control mechanism is adopted . We flipped OpenSea Fraud activity report page , I found that I was filling in about “NFT Stolen ” When reporting information about , It needs to be described in detail NFT、 Blockchain 、 Address 、 Reasons for theft and other relevant information . Although I can't understand OpenSea How to review after receiving relevant reports , But combined with this case, we can try to speculate , If relevant NFT Exist in OpenSea Other transfer records outside the platform （“ A violent temper ” Transfer to NFTfi, Then it was transferred to passers-by lenders ）, Maybe it will be OpenSea Marked as “ Suspicious activity ”.

Odaily Star daily ： similar zamunda.eth Hold it like this “ Suspicious activity ” identification NFT Users of can also appeal to unlock , But according to my personal understanding , The efficiency of related appeals is not high , It may even take months .

Sum up , The answer seems clear . One of the major contradictions of the incident is  OpenSea I don't know why I didn't NFTfi The liquidation execution process of is regarded as a normal transaction , Instead, it was judged to be suspicious .

Yes, of course ,OpenSea As and NFTfi Independent platforms , It is not difficult to understand that risk control is carried out according to its own standards rather than external records . However , This deviation in judgment objectively caused this case about NFT Minor frictions in the lending business , It also gives us the opportunity to review again from the perspective of the whole industrial chain NFT Lending business . With NFT Further expansion of lending business , Related default events are bound to increase . For upstream lending platforms that rely on trading platforms to perform clearing , Maybe you need to do something with the trading platform B End cooperation and communication , So as to reduce the possibility of similar events .

Besides ,OpenSea Currently, it still occupies the whole NFT The vast majority of the trading market . In this incident ,zamunda.eth You can choose other trading platforms , But because of OpenSea Of traffic “ monopoly ”, Other trading platforms will inevitably discount their selling efficiency , therefore “ Suspicious activity ” The logo is so lethal . a certain extent , This can also be regarded as the whole NFT The monopoly risk of the industry , From the perspective of healthy development of the market , Maybe we really need more trading platforms .