Here’re the latest big challenges:
All originating from 0x41e91e3710a35e39125ce562a380508c12fd1bad
Here’re the latest big challenges:
All originating from 0x41e91e3710a35e39125ce562a380508c12fd1bad
Think this is the POI owner … not the challenger. My bad …
Hello, it’s me the POI owner (thanks for aggregating these @N_O_O_B ) . These are the points of mine the challenger got before I was able to reduce the stake on them. I reduced the stake on all my other POI.
These are all POI in my neighborhood. If anyone wants me to validate this data with pictures, video, etc, let me know
challenge: POI is on the wrong side of the street
response: it’s… not.
challenge: Zip code is missing and POI is positioned incorrectly.
response: these are both false assertions.
Challenge: POI is incorrectly placed–should be further west. URL not specific enough.
response: I disagree about POI placement but others are welcome to examine a map or go visit the point (as I have). Regarding the URL, this is the most specific one can get afaik.
Challenge: POI should be significantly further south. “Attraction” should also be tagged.
response: POI is correctly located. This is a restaurant, not a sculpture garden and it’s not really much to look at from the outside, so I disagree with the ‘attraction’ critique. Please let me know if you think otherwise?
I take the blame for leaving value in my POI from when I was experimenting months ago and thus baiting the challenger. But this person is basically making it impossible to stake any value on POIs. Which also makes it a problem for trusting POIs in general-- they’re doing this for financial reasons, but if they’re successful in this they can be successful in other motivations, making POI map a very weak source of truth.
I’d appreciate it if others vote on these, but i assume we’re dealing with ~.5 million FOAM in challenge vote. Perhaps if you are wise you’ll also vote “NO” and then at least share in the reward pot. i hope you don’t though
all those points lost… like tears… in… the rain
Actually, i don’t think so. I don’t know if that is the address of the challenger or not, but it’s not the POI owner :).
Will know the address of the challenger soon enough … when the next FOAM Daily Digest comes in.
I’m wondering if some of these challenges might be from rival projects though … it’s getting to be real disruptive.
Thinking that way too. At the very least, it is definitely a malicious actor. Should we change the vote quorum to higher than 60%?
So I’m just getting started with FOAM, but I plan on voting against for some other these votes since they seem totally wrong. Can someone give me a low down on what the risks are for voting? If I vote against the challenge and the challenge wins, do I lose the votes? Or I just don’t win any of the reward? I figure it is the latter, but I want to make sure before I start throwing FOAM at this.
Hi Ross, thanks and welcome to the community!
At this time, there are no risks to voting, only challenging. If you are on the correct side of the vote you can receive part of the reward.
There are proposals and unsolved challenges around punishing voters on the wrong side of the vote that can be included in an upgrade. See the forming discussion around improvement proposals here:
Thanks Ryan. Very Helpful. I will work to fight against malicious challengers then!
How would that work out tho?
In recent memory a majority of On Chain Governance polls have had low participation rates.
Take 0x and Aragon for example:
A “malicious” actor could almost always swing the vote their way if they had enough FOAM.
Also, in the current voting rules, what if there’s a draw?
I do not believe there can be a draw. Either the vote reaches or passes the needed quorum or it fails.
Signaling mechanisms, carbon votes, sentiment pooling and coordination can preceded the vote - also to reach larger holders. Would have better sense of how vote would turn out before held.
But what are the concrete measures that will be implemented soon to prevent such disruptive and malicious voting? It’s all well and good getting FOAM holders to vote against malicious challenges, but how many FOAM holders are actually aware? The challenge on KEZAR Bar had over 400,000 votes … we need a pretty large rallying call to overcome that kind of voting power!
Another few things to keep in mind when voting:
Welcome to Foam and thanks for helping me defend the grocery stores of Berkeley
No longer having access to the (real life) Berkeley Bowl is an ongoing source of sadness for me! Much of the Bay Area is special, but it’s a cut above.
Note: in the recent releases the SALT for voting is saved in your browser cache and will be auotfilled when you go to reveal. But still a good practice to save the code in case your browser cache is refreshed.
Of course as Eric points out On Chain Governance leads to plutocracy. There is no need to be romantic about voting, we know large holders can sway the vote, we need hard lined voting blocks to defend the map and coordinate together until we can experiment with quadradic voting or other curation means (any proposals?)
In the mean time, is there anything inherently wrong with point stakes tremding towards 50? In the long run PoI minimum stake may trend towards 1 FOAM. Who is to say being a curator should be intensely lucrative, maybe only a 1 FOAM is enough incentive one day for a small data correction. My analysis tells me FOAM for Zone Operators and other Lo-FI as they now say “location finance” methods will be where the usage is thriving. The TCR is the first demonstration of the tokens use. What do you think @yinzeus
I voted my max against all these challenges. Lies in the challenge reason should be punished by the community and I hope everybody here chips in to break this pattern of malicious behaviour.
Do we see a pattern in the last couple of weeks? A couple of weeks ago there were some high-stake challenges against what I would characterize as low quality POIs (lack of description etc.) For instance the ones in Girona, Spain. I voted against some and for some, depending on the specifics. Then we started seeing a wave of challenges with false reasons.
Did the “malicious” actor start out looking for easy, but fair wins, acting as a curator and thus actually contributing to the improvement of the map, before getting increasingly greedy?
I have not had time to do any kind of forensics. Just my thoughts from being more into FOAM for the last month than in the past.
I was thinking about this today. Ideally FOAM should incentivize engagement with a stake on the customer side as well. Having a wallet, charged with a FOAM token and ether would go along way to enabling micro-transactions. If I understand where we are headed with PLASMA, this could include transactions on a side-chain that would have lower gas fees. Micro-transactions could include customer loyalty points or coupons for repeat visits etc. Once the larger consumer base has a stake in the protocol, Plutocracy should be more difficult.
I agree as well, inherently FOAM stakes should tend towards deflation overtime, which will unlock some of the early tokens that maybe stuck in unused Signals, or wallets that have chosen to wait for the ecosystem to evolve. Deflation does not mean HODL forever, only that capital is not destroyed over time.
At this point I would be very interested in loaning tokens to someone who was curating the map actively in a manner that supported the community’s goals. Someone who was spending a few hours a day curating the map, should be compensated adequately. Ideally the mechanics of such should be mediated by a smart contract…Since the transfer of FOAM counts towards PoU to unlock, this might be a good idea to consider further.
If we’re coining terms, LocFin (Locative Finance) may be more apt. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locative_media for an area that may be expressive for FOAM.space.
The importance of providing location specific services with the mechanics of value transfer is a real win for the evolution of FOAM as a protocol. Think, Craigslist, Ebay, Tinder and Yelp, all disrupt-able by dApps integrated with FOAM.
All are intensely dependent on location! The first two, require person to person payment for goods and services. The second two require Consumer to Business payment. While ebay found a niche with consumer to consumer, and later business to consumer transactions that involved shipments–We should not discount or discourage the ability for second hand goods, used items and micro-businesses that cannot afford the cost of a full-time store front to thrive with their intended local customer base.
In the case of Tinder clones, I see a lot of synergy for a FOAM dApp that offered a discount to a couple for a date night (Tinder charges $10-20 a month for premium access)…discounts can also be rewards, NFT or shared value that is dependent on both parties showing up.
Yelp as an established player is definitely disrupt-able, the Yelp reviews can become stale, some businesses have one or two reviews a year!!! By providing a virtuous cycle where a customer is rewarded for quality reviews, we could open up repeat business, and winning consumers to a focused area that might skip a place. Quotes from the reviews could be included a map or search view based on a quality score.
Micro-transactions are key here. By enabling low cost engagement, and incentivizing repeated interactions, value and reputations are built. Having all parties have ‘skin in the game’, will enforce appropriate risk and rewards. Think enthusiast vs disinterested users of FOAM enabled dApps. CryptoKitties have a very low retention rate for monthly users and FOAM based on locational data should be significantly higher as it is more relevant day to day. Sharing must be functional across all facets of the technology space. URL / URI, Bluetooth or NFC enabled ‘Bumps’ or Beacons, any friction in perpetuating the FOAM message should be eliminated. Twitter did not invent hashtags, they emerged as a way to filter, and share content.
Foam.Space, FOAM and the FOAM protocol are going to evolve. We just need to build the virtuous economy together.
I am in agreement with you. Although if I see challenges coming from certain addresses, especially high stake ones, I would vote against them by default. The original POI might not be perfect, but to penalize them because of small imperfections is really unfair. Besides, a lot of the reasons provided for by the challengers are rather subjective, such as not having a website or a phone number.