Unfortunately no …
I’m going to interpret this as a general frustration with the speed that the ecosystem is evolving. It is to be hoped that deployment of Zone Anchors’ will provide the capability that is desired for progressing the FOAM protocol forward. If “Griefing” becomes common in the POI process, then I would agree that changes to the POI process should incentivize activity desired by all stakeholders.
Requiring a POI Challenge winner to stake the new POI with accurate information, would exhibit the Skin in the Game requirement of a vested interest, the new POI would be open to challenges, although it could be assumed that as the winner of the previous challenge they would be one less challenger… there are some game theory components that might be better off simulated before changing the functional components of FOAM. This also may greatly complicate the smart contract which is also an undesired result.
I’m so excited by dPOL and Zone Anchors’ rolling out, and I really don’t want POI’s alone to divert from what that can bring.
So whoever he is takes his frustration out on another cartographer who has got nothing to do with the design of the FOAM protocol?
Well said. Also in scenario where the point is actually incorrect or a business no longer operating, then it would not make sense to force a challenger to re-add the point if there was no point to add.
Let’s see if there’s a 4th …
I sure hope so, if only to see the new challenge reason.
POI staker is a capitalist?
Latest challenge: “Meat is murder”.
All I can say about this challenger (which is top on leaderboard for rewards!) is they are clearly having a laugh and only interested in profit over improvement! an unwanted community member poking instead of building.
All of us are stakeholders in FOAM and have the agency to build improvements and spread use! This is petty behavior hopefully we as a community can rally against. Nevertheless, I have confidence the FOAM Map will improve and next step of radios will launch. This is our space race moment and we need all hands on deck.
This is an overly simplistic take IMO.
It’s extremely important that the POI mechanism gets stress-tested. Griefing attacks, automated attacks, bad faith voting–we should all actively want to see all kinds of behavior so the FOAM team can adjust the incentives as needed. There is more than one kind of improvement possible in these early stages. It’s so much better to figure out how the system could be gamed now, rather than later when more is at stake (ha!).
Given that the person has lost the challenge 3x now, I see little evidence for your claim that profit is the motive.
How about this address: 0xe5dd78c224f26e306c84a9b1aa2def30bdf15835?
Any link to the addresses mentioned in your post? A lot of high stake challenges originating from this also.