Challenge of 0x49906dcbc3340d363fcfeb7e76f79359faea2b057bed2ee5bcde674dd526d705


I’ve challenged

The only thing wrong about it is the web address, which leads to city’s front page. There is a more specific address for the POI:

I’m curious about community opinion on this challenge.


Until a “nudge” challenge feature is introduced I personally do not think a correct but “incomplete” website is enough to start a challenge.

That said you only challenged for 212 FOAM and not the 75000 staked in the point.


Fair enough. On the other hand, I’d argue that a 75K POI will stand out quite prominently on the map and so deserves some extra attention compared to a minimal stake POI.


True, just hope that if removed owner not discouraged to re add a near correct poi


Hmm there are tons and tons and tons of POIs currently with no website listing at all, which very well could and should have a website listing and yet you’re going after this?!

Empire State Building is a high profile example of this which should be pointing to this: but has nothing!

I’m going to challenge your challenge to stop your BS.
The is fine here, just like is fine for all Starbucks.


You’re potentially setting up a very stupid, ridiculous and pretty cruel precedent here for POI owners…
There is a Starbucks down the road from this Recreation Center and lo and behold it has its own website to link to per your logic ( whereas 99.9% of us will be linking to


You saw this big 75k whale of a location to challenge and figured you’d nitpick the website location for no other reason than the 75k stake.

BS man.
Hope you lose, bad.


Also I obviously will be drastically reducing my FOAM at this POI after it’s confirmed. So fear not about there being a 75k FOAM POI pointing to a rec center with a general website address as I’ll be reducing it to 1k shortly afterwards.

Edit: I do just want to say that I had visited the rec center’s direct link and chose to put the City’s website instead as links obviously change, and especially this long one for the rec center will likely be reconfigured multiple times in the future by the City of Denver. I didn’t want to create any precedent-setting thing by using the City’s website, which is technically correct.
But if I lose I’ll be challenging every single one of the POI’s out there without absolutely direct-linked website addresses. No simple “” for any Walmart location will be sufficient. Regardless of FOAM staked amount they’ll be challenged if this passes… Which is bs, IMO.


Hey all, interesting discussion going on!

Just wanted to chime in a little on how the challenge amount impacts the amount at risk.

The maximum risk for a POI owner is the amount of FOAM tokens that is staked the POI but if the POI has been challenged for an amount less than the amount staked, the owner can choose to withdraw the remainder FOAM to prevent losing more FOAM and/or defend the POI by voting on it.

If a POI has 100k tokens at stake and is challenged with 1k tokens owner can withdraw 99k tokens.

If the Challenger wins, the Owner of the POI loses their stake. In other words, the Owner loses an amount equal to what the Challenger staked and the point gets removed. Any balance on top of that remaining in the POI is returned to the Owner.

But if the challenger loses then the FOAM that he staked in the challenge will be given to all those that voted in the challenge

You can read up more on it here:


I have voted in favor of this POI remaining.

There are a lot of things to consider when creating a POI, such as whether or not the website is official or not, which of several websites to choose from (without bias), etc etc. Sometimes that hasn’t been an easy call. In some POIs, I’ve left it blank, but it would be silly (and messy) to have to include my thinking process justifying a decision to include or exclude some information.

The web, the phone numbers, and even data about a POI can change as well. I agree this seems like an easy effort at winning FOAM, but it creates a precedent that isn’t healthy. I hope the foam team creates a “data change challenge” that allows for “boosting POI information” (similar to boosting foam amount), rather than the current structure of throwing out the baby with the bath water.


@CentralParkRec, you’re overreacting over (unfounded) fear of losing your stake. “Dumb”, “stupid”, “BS”, threats to retaliate the world with challenges? That’s understandable, but I hope it’s clear now that your “investments” were not in any danger. By the way, if you’re looking for a safe way to satisfy proof-of-use condition, I recommend waiting until signalling is deployed. There are no challenges planned for that, as far as I know, so you’ll be able to dump all FOAM in signalling risk-free.

My goal is not remove this POI or earn a few tokens of unknown value. My goal is to improve the map. Large FOAM stakes do not contribute to the map’s value; density and accuracy of POIs do.

You argue that the web address may change. Well, many things about POIs can and will change and yet they need to be kept accurate and up to date. As a user of the map I’d rather have the more specific web address than a generic landing page or Wouldn’t most users prefer that?


Understandable. I definitely put something of a target on my back with the large stake however my anger here stems from the fact that there are so many more easier, lower-hanging fruits all over than a general website versus a very, very specific which has a very high chance of changing some day.

I mean think about it for a second, you are basically trying to set a precedent from the very get-go that all POI owners will have to create some kind of constant tracking mechanism on every single specific website referenced in their POI’s.

I only have about 15 POI’s so far and the idea of having to revisit every single one of their specific websites every week or so to make sure nothing’s changed with the link itself while the building itself is still there in the exact and correct location it’s always been in from the get-go is patently absurd, annoying, inefficient and irrational… Especially since the point of this entire project is to track the geographic location, not the HTML location.


I deff agree with CentralParkRec here.

Yes there was a “large target” due to a high stake, but otherwise this was a near perfect point.

I am very down with the mission of us Cartographers vehemently curating the map and challenging when things are out of date or incorrect.

There are many other points, that I have not challenged, that are either blatantly false or a joke that would be better to bring attention to in terms of increasing quality that this challenge.

However, foamspacer I am aligned with your mission to improve the map — no matter how this challenge plays out i hope we all still can help improve the map together :smiley:


i believe in the future that POI meta data will be mutable either with ENS addresses or IPNS addresses where the owner of the point can change info on the fly as needed. Also with soft challenges, nudges in TCRs then you can just challenge a piece of metadata and not just a point wholesale.

but for now… that is not the case so giving leniency to the metadata of points and focusing on the proof of location part makes sense to me


The vote reveal period has begun.


Interestingly, when asked about their preference, replied with the following:

Please use the address of