CHALLENGE to Bushwick Generator


Hello All,

Bushwick Generator is a creative and innovation hub in the heart of Brooklyn. We would greatly appreciate if you would vote in opposition to this challenge against the Bushwick Generator.

Follow the live tweet stream:

The point was challenged because there are two “New York’s” in the address: “215 Moore Street, Brooklyn, New York, New York 11206, United States”. All of the surrounding points also have two “New York” names in the address, so I am not sure if this was an issue across the board.

Other than that, the point is located exactly at 215 Moore St. and it is, in fact, the Bushwick Generator, a creative, culture & innovation hub. Please support this point of interest by voting in opposition to this nitpicking challenger.

Here is our website:
Here is about the Bushwick blockchain alliance:
Here is an article on us:

We would greatly appreciate your support, and with this, we would offer you to come to be a part of our space and community!


I will vote in your favor as you believe I should @EmerickPaul - Never an intent to take the point from the family. I visited your site prior to challenging and the work Bushwick Generator generates is exciting! In honesty, I thought your listing was possibly an intentional reward placement in the early stages of FOAM and in support of it’s initiative. Trust I am not that finicky nor greedy but this case in point demonstrates the risk, work, and effort that still needs to be put forth and defined within the framework of governance and limits (circuit breakers) on the map to protect the time, money, effort, image, and integrity of all participants in the efforts to build and foster community.

Your initiative is great @BushXGenerator - I wish you and your members all the very best. As dutiful cartographer, and supporter of FOAM, I have no problem taking the hit for the integrity and best interest of the community and map.


Just so I know @EmerickPaul, as maybe I am unaware of addressing as it pertains to NY and as curiosity has now grabbed the best of me, is the POI as listed technically correct?


It’s not correct as Brooklyn is not in New York county–it’s in Kings County. But this forum seems to like to vote on feeling rather than correctness. Disclaimer: not the challenger.


Is the correct address just New York, New York or Brooklyn, New York?


The correct name is Brooklyn, NY (STATE). If you want to add a county name, it has to be Kings, not New York.


No, “Brooklyn, New York, New York” IS the default. Try and register a new point on the FOAM map in Brooklyn, it automatically defaults to “Brooklyn, New York, New York”. Changing the default could very well have been subject to a challenge as well.


Just because Mapbox does it that way doesn’t make it correct. It’s not correct.

Look at how USPS does its Brooklyn addresses.!input.action?radius=40&locationType=po&locationID=1387747&locationName=WILLIAMSBURG&address2=&address1=263+S+4TH+ST&city=BROOKL

Anyway, what bothers me is that people are voting for validation not because of mapping reasons but rather because they like a blockchain business and appeals to emotion.


It is technically correct if the FOAM default is correct. I did not change it from the default address–and didn’t have reason to believe that was incorrect. It is technically correct r.e. FOAM’s default address populator. Just look at every point around it and probably any point in Brooklyn, they are all the same.


Thanks @EmerickPaul for sharing this challenge. This is an interesting challenge because it highlights the issue of pulling data into the interface from off chain resources, like Mapbox. Without base map interface, it would be points on a blank grid – which anyone is welcome to create an an alternative user interface.

It has not been identified before that Mapbox encodes Brooklyn addresses with two New Yorks. It would be interesting to get a hold of them to determine why. Clearly Mapbox sees this as the correct addressing. Additionally, we can look to see if there is a way to prevent this going forward, as this challenge is certainly a technicality of the interface, not an error of the Cartographer.


This is an appreciated challenge. More was staked because it was my understanding that the more you staked, the larger the point would show up on the map (this may have been a misunderstanding). I didn’t know what the eventual use case of POI’s would be but did look at it as a sort of future reward or a signal for BG’s commitment to FOAM in general (apart from dynamic POL).

I can say that IF the Bushwick Generator wins the vote, I am willing to refund our portion of the challenge to the challenger and will ask those who voted for the Bushwick Generator, in opposition to the challenge, to do the same. It is all in good spirit here and we look forward to engaging more with the FOAM protocol and community.


This has been alluded to but currently doesn’t exist as far as I can tell. It’s unfortunate that people have been responding to an incentive that currently doesn’t exist. I’m super sympathetic on this front.


To clarify @jazzhands it does in fact exist, in list form. You can rank all points by stake that are within your view port.

Of course there are a multitude of ways to further integrate ranking by stake on the Map layer, like this for example


@Ryan_foam, @EmerickPaul Is referring to a feature that doesn’t exist–“the more you staked, the larger the point would show up on the map.” Correct me if I’m wrong though, @Ryan_foam. I’m grateful for the feature you pointed out, but that’s not the same as differential visibility on the map itself (or differential rewards for staking amounts).

There may come a time when higher stakes may mean higher rewards or visibility on the map, but currently none of those incentives/features are in place (meaning IMO that people currently shouldn’t be staking higher than 50 FOAM, given that it is all risk and no reward).


I appreciate the gesture @EmerickPaul but I’m ok if we let this play out to see how all actors ponder and weigh the validity of the map in context with the importance of the evolving FOAM project’s vision. With this case in point, your organization was represented incorrectly by potential error (TBD) in a mapping database that we, in all our prior experiences with maps, take for granted as true or suck it up because we have no control. Here, the onus is on the community to make the hard decisions and to work towards correcting what needs be, in the name of progress.

How do we vote? One sadly must lose but a loss should not be heartfelt as surely I feel we’re both good fellas. This one though, is hard I know, and even if the vote were to go to the accuracy of the map, this forum discussion is important as it may likely become the basis to rectify future confusion or add varying protections for varying users in subsequent governance processes.

Beyond the cost of challenge, how does a mapping technicality like this affect your organization’s presence_on and/or future_use with this map or the likely inaccuracies existing on other maps? How does this location discrepancy affect businesses other than your own with differing objectives? Is this address format what all NY’s prefer or believe is standard for their representation? Does it have any affect on future FOAM implementations? Does a vote one way or another lead to difficulty or inhibit creative and accelerating use cases, especially now that we live in an age with so much logical opportunity? Is a decentralized approach to creating location standards and levels of accuracy, an imperative progressive approach?

The FOAM project attempts an evolution in mapping dynamics. Is this all for the betterment? I don’t know, but in part I think the destiny is in the hands of the greater community of participants, whether there is a shared vision, to what extent participants get involved, and how badly they want… what they see, in their mapped world of potential.

Errors will be made, feelings may be hurt, integrity may be challenged, coins may be lost but that’s all the more reason to put our heads together to see this project evolve, get past the rough stuff, and iron out the world for future users, to the aim of unbridled dynamic progress.

As for me @EmerickPaul if the vote lands to the challenger’s favor, once you revive the Bushwick Generator listing from the graveyard layer I will stake any reward received straight to your POI as a beacon of the great work you all do.


Let it be clear also that outcome of this challenge will set a precedent, potentially affecting almost 200 POIs currently placed in “Brooklyn, New York, New York”.


Yowza, lol… So the Foam community sets the ‘precedent’. Moving forward, 2 New York’s for Brooklyn and 2 Bologna’s is the correct address formatting. Back to basic geography for me, lol. A little surprised how Dekrypt w/o tel# and w/o suite #, in an office of suites, makes a valid address. Stepped into that trap too I guess!

Thanks to @EmerickPaul for following through on your offer to send your reward back my way. A kind gesture indeed and sincerely appreciated but a challenge is a challenge. I know victories sometimes taste sour but maybe sweeten it up as a reward pool for a dApp hackathon at your own Bushwick Generator.

MurphSlaw’s caliber of cartography and signal are outta tune, but that’s how MurphSlaw does :slight_smile: Don’t know if your playing the right game at a table that’s right for you unless you push some limits and test some pressure points. Deepest lessons come when everyone gets to walk away with something felt and learned. FOAM community is great! Enjoy the coin, make it count, and give it great worth! Best wishes FOAMers!!!

Arrivederci, Arrivederci