Assessment of Current Challenges 4/30


Malicious Challenges 4/30

Ainsley-curated list. If you want your POI added, describe the POI, the challenge, and any proof that you can offer. These points are drawn from other threads on this forum, including Challenges Ending on 2nd May and Challenge to Meatworks Butchery threads.

REVEAL PHASE: **Cole Coffee

  • Challenge Reason: POI is on wrong side of street.
  • Justification: Not true.
  • Challenge amount: 2000 FOAM

REVEAL PHASE: Berkeley Bowl

  • Challenge Reason: Zip code is missing and POI is positioned incorrectly.
  • Justification: Not true.
  • Challenge amount: 2000 FOAM

REVEAL PHASE: Whole Foods Market

  • Challenge Reason: POI is incorrectly placed–should be further west. URL not specific enough.
  • Justification: Not true.
  • Challenge amount: 2051 FOAM

REVEAL PHASE: Chez Panisse

  • Challenge Reason: POI should be significantly further south. “Attraction” should also be tagged.
  • Justification: POI is correctly placed. It’s a restaurant, not an attraction.
  • Challenge amount: 3000 FOAM

REVEAL PHASE: Raffles Hotel

  • Challenge Reason: POI a bit off from the main Raffles Hotel Building
  • Justification: it is not (See thread on May 2 challenges)
  • Challenge amount: 50 FOAM

The Hanging Bat

  • Challenge reason: The Hanging Bat is actually on the other side of the street (West Side). Source: personal knowledge, as well as Google Maps.
  • Justification: This is not true. Perhaps challenger indulged too much at the hanging bat before checking which side of the street it was on :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
  • Challenge amount: 2000 FOAM

Wentworth Falls

  • Challenge reason: Address is incomplete and overly abbreviated, and both phone number and website are missing. Will replace on removal.
  • Justification: Another “will replace” challenge from a repeatedly malicious challenger. Why should a natural landmark have a website?:sweat_drops:
  • Challenge amount: 2000 FOAM

Old Faithful

  • Challenge REason: POI is in the wrong position, as can be very clearly seen on the Mapbox overlay.
  • Justification: Nope, incorrect. See May 2 challneges thread for proof. :eyes:
  • Challenge amount: 550 FOAM

Make Way for Ducklings :duck:

  • Challenge Reason: POI is actually on the other side of the walking path. Source: Live in Boston and checked OSM.
  • Justification: A bostonian cartographer has examined this and found it to be a lie. See may 2nd challenges thread for details.
  • Challenge amount: 2000 FOAM

Sports Castle

  • Challenge Reason: Phone number is missing, and the POI has nothing to do with “Blockchain.”
  • Challenge amount: 1500 FOAM

Bongeusa Temple

  • Challnege Reason: Both the phone number and url are missing. Have replaced with complete POI.
  • Justification: Challenger did not do what they claimed.
  • Challenge Amount: 1200 FOAM

The Nut

  • Challenge Reason: The actual Nut is much further to the west.
  • Justification: it’s a volcano nut and covers the entire territory. Challenger does not know how to find own nut.
  • Challenge Amount: 1123.00 FOAM

Meatworks Butchery

  • Challenge Reason: i dont like the name
  • Justification: evident
  • Challenge Amount: 50 FOAM

Decrypt Capital:

Regents Park:

  • Challenge reason: POI is misplaced. The address given is “Inner Circle,” but the POI dot isn’t even close to that location. Though less severe, it’s also unfortunate that both the website ( and phone number (+44 300 061 2300) are missing.
  • Justification: The POI is a park, and the POI is accurately placed near the center of the park. While this park appears to have a website, and a phone #, I don’t consider these grounds for challenging the park. I am additionally swayed because the challenger has never replaced or improved a POI, and is likely seeking out this challenge because it is a high (27200.00 FOAM) value POI.
  • Challenge amount: 27200.00 FOAM

Lyon - panoramic view

  • Challenge reason: A view is not a real POI. The Basilica would be a much stronger suggestion for a POI.
  • Justification: a view is a perfectly reasonable POI, but use your judgement. I suspect the motivation here is the staked amount of 200 FOAM.
  • Challenge amount: 2000 FOAM


Thanks! these are all from today? Great work, but would be helpful to get the names of the points in the post.


I agree. I just didn’t have time, I’ll update it later when I can.
These are not all challenges made today, I just aggregated the challenges specifically protested by POI owners or other curators that are currently active across multiple threads.


Thank you! :crossed_swords::pray:

Challenges Ending On 2nd May

Updating to include Lyon - panoramic view.

Lyon - panoramic view

Thank you so much for your time :crossed_swords:

I remember wondering how long Regents Park would last when it got added last week. Perhaps it’s time the owner pulls back their 100K+ FOAM and oppose the challenges listed above.


I don’t think he can withdraw his staked tokens from the POI during the challenge phase.


They can’t, but they had another 100K+ FOAM that didn’t go into POI creation.


Does anyone know why this POI was challenged? The description of the challenge just says “please help vote on malicious POI challenges! Current list here: Assessment of Current Challenges 4/30

So it points back to this thread, which points back to it. Seems a little circular. I can’t find a reason. Only challenged for 50 and not from one of the malicious accounts.


Seems clear to me that someone challenged it in order to ‘ping’ the POI owner (i.e. hoping that the POI owner would then be inspired to vote on the other challenges).


:rotating_light::warning: Whale Alert :rotating_light::warning:


Over past 24 hours, has individually voted 5,000,000 FOAM into voting contract. Still holding over 13,000,000 valued at $430,000. Hope it’s a good guy!


Yikes. Our plutocrat overlord has arrived.

Nicely spotted, @nameloceroom.

I personally am feeling incredible pessimistic about TCRs right now. Under the current rules, it seems that either people take down POIs in bad faith or we rely on a king to save us. Both options suck.


I hope we summoned the entity :sweat_smile:
The sun is rising on a new era of 1million+ FOAM votes…


I feel you. But I am hopeful also that we can mitigate some of these things over time, as has been apparently discussed on the community calls.

I think like a baby human TCRs are difficult to bootstrap. I hope we make it through this phase… And once they are bigger they are more robust, perhaps with some good genetic modification (quadratic voting? Reputation-weighting?).



Is it fair for users to ask who this whale is, given that the fate of every POI is now in their hands? What are your thoughts on VCs voting, or members of the Foam team for that matter? Is there a code of conduct for employees when it comes to the TCR?


@ainsleysutherland Yes! I hope we make it through this too. Difficult problems to be sure, but there are certainly things to try.


Come to the next Community Workshop Call if you want to help us iterate and tweak this ongoing experiment that is the TCR. It’s the only way that it’s going to get better.

We need community presence. Last time, only a few people spoke up. Let us know how we can accommodate if the time or other aspects don’t work. Open to any and all suggestions of how to make it better.



It is against the terms of the token sale and laws around KYC data to share such information. As of this date, Foamspace has not compensated any employees with tokens, a code of conduct for usage is a great idea to have in place for when employees may have tokens.

As you know the the FOAM token sale was open to the public with the same terms for all participants. There were strict measures put in place to keep speculators away from the sale and allow those that intend to use the token, attest as such through the purchase process, prove they understand the token and agree to use the token in the network participate in the sale. With these measures in place a diverse group in both geography and purchase amounts came together and became stake holders in the project. There are a number of large holders of FOAM, not one, that are also users of the protocol.

As mentioned by @nameloceroom there is growing activity around the Community Workshop Call and improvement proposals, including ideas around new voting techniques and mechanisms that lower the emphasis on pure token weight.


Thanks @Ryan_foam this is really interesting stuff that I hadn’t seen before.


More can be found here:

There are many active users that participated in the token sale and while they have added points they have also been building test applications, signaled, organized events and have gone above and beyond testing hardware themselves in preparation for test networks. The entire community is not represented on discourse and it is unfortunate that not all users registered for email notifications in a timely manner (to provide this service is a large project on its own that we could only work on after launch) and many were distraught over finding that their point that they had put time into was removed for a questionable reason.

I believe that all of the limitations of one of the first TCRs have been discussed, the most productive path for this open source project is to go deeper into the proposals that have so forth been collected to discern how they would operate in more detail, towards a specification and implementation. The email notifications and forthcoming curator tools will continue to aid Cartographers and will ideally lead to more becoming aware that they can reduce their stake in points and subscribe to notifications. However, just because a point has a higher than minimum stake should in no way indicate that that user has only done so for Proof of Use and is not an active user, as all are first time users of token curation.