Challenges Ending On 2nd May


First off, wasn’t there a discussion sometime ago about including reputation of each cartographer to the mix? How’s that different from what I am doing? I am basically looking at the source of each challenge (wallet address), not exactly based on sense.

Secondly, we can’t be 100% certain on whether a point is correct or not, unless we personally know the place. Overlaying another map, such as Mapbox, is not 100 foolproof either.

So, as a general rule, I will go against a challenge if it meets the following criteria:

  1. High number of tokens;
  2. Comes from an address that has been launching numerous challenges with high number of tokens;
  3. Nit-picking.


But is anyone calling for a vote?

How’s that unfair? It is their project after all, and cartographers have paid hard earned cash to participate in the FOAM map, and are now losing money because of its imperfections …


I actually agree with @Jazzhands personally, the challenge system was designed to remove “Faulty” POIs and voting decisions should be based on that.

Although I do have qualms against nitpicking, it’s actually the least successful challenge reason based on Analytics that Caleb presented during the Community Workshop.

In an ideal world, I would love to see the challenger and/or the large voter replace the Faulty POIs with a “correct” POI of his own. Who best to place it than the ones that decided it doesn’t belong on the map?


Define “faulty”. Right now, the way I see it, “faulty” means having less vote than the challenger.


I agree with @N_O_O_B until the Curator dashboard that was previewed is released then we are free to draw our own reputation conclusions. It is clear that the challenger is linked between many challenger accounts and should be voted against. I do not see any positive contributions without re-adding or otherwise adding points (those accounts only challenge do not add)


I think what Coleman is trying to say that discussions like the “FOAM Improvement Proposals” have started and it gives the opportunity for community members to discuss these issues to be formalized into a proposal/bounty for other developers to fix rather than relying on the FOAMSpace team to solve everything, and that’s not to say that the team isn’t working on FOAM Map issues, we are.

It’s just that the current priority is with launching FOAM Location so we may not have as much time or manpower to work on every issue or incorporate every suggestion apart from the low hanging fruits.


So … working on the bells and whistles instead of getting the basics right first?


I wrote “Faulty” as such since it was subjective to the challenger, I do agree that there have been some challenges that have just been nitpicky and so should be voted against, which we’ve actually seen in lower staked POIs where nitpicky reasons lost.

It is just when the stakes are higher thats when interests/motivations change.


So how about removing the greed factor?


There have been multiple suggestions around changing TCR parameters including this one. This is one of the subjects of our next Community Workshop Call on 5/9.

In case you haven’t noticed, if you want this project to succeed, it’s going to require an extremely large and constructive community. Also, if you thought the TCR dynamics were going to be perfect right off the bat and there would be no risk, then you probably should’ve stayed away in the first place. You made your own decision to buy tokens and put them at stake. This is one of the first TCRs ever created, and it’s a live experiment. The only way to make it work in the long-run is to learn and iteratively improve it over time. No one has all the answers, they are learning as they go.

Suggesting actionable improvements always works better than pointing at other people to fix a problem.

dPoL is “bells and whistles”? That’s the bread and butter.


Far from that, we’ve taken note of all the issues that were reported either from Discourse or from users, which were discussed during the Community Workshop and the team is working on addressing some of the issues brought up ourselves.

It’s just that some upgrades proposed require smart contract changes which require a lot more discussion and work than simple Front End Issues.

These issues would only have been discovered via real world testings. And what you are describing is mostly incentive based issues rather than core functionality issues.

FOAM is one of the first TCR’s on main net and the basic mechanism of the FOAM Map TCR all work and not only was it tested through an initial use period with features added throughout the smart contracts themselves launched by FOAM have an upgrade functionality.

With that being said there could be an eventual FOAM Map TCR 2.0 which will look to address a multitude of issues and features and could even alter the incentive mechanism, if there were a proposal that sufficiently addresses the above concerns. Again this was one of the reasons that the discussions around the FOAM Improvement Proposals were started for.


No, I don’t. In fact, I am ahead. In case you are wondering, those high staked POIs that are being challenged and/or removed aren’t mine. So I ain’t complaining because I lost tokens.

But if this persists, it’s gonna turn a lot of people off.


Then let’s fix it. Come to the next workshop call with constructive ideas.


There are more invalid challenges today:


Anyone interested in forming a white hat-ish band against this attack? Any member of said band must have a minimum amount of FOAM token (say 50k. This can be formulated later). Band will only move as a block on a vote if (1) appealed to by the attack victim (2) said victim makes their case (3) social consensus is certified by poll voting of some kind (4) whatever else members come up with.

Band will only form if members can amass a minimum of 1MM to 2MM combined FOAM tokens. What do you think? I think together we fight.


Why is the minimum important? I’ve just had one of my points challenged btw.


Which pointe, @alphonse ?

BTW, I just voted for all of the above 4 to keep the POI. @nameloceroom


Coordination becomes quite difficult as the number of participants increase. A low barrier may mean too many participants. Each case will have a few days to appeal, make their case, get social consensus and then vote. This is no small feat especially when you consider several of these may be happening simultaneously.


I started a thread to do this for current challenges-- It’s pretty obvious these are all garbage challenges when you look at them so coordination shouldn’t be too hard.


Provide link. Any commitments?