Challenges in Girona, Spain


#21

I am the challenger to Escola Pla de Girona, DIA, etc.

My experience with FOAM so far:

I heard about the project on the Epicenter podcast. Found no POI’s in my area. Added a personally very important one, the Institute for Advanced Study.

Got curious about the incentive system, found there is no incentive to create a new POI. Strange design choice, but okay.

It turns out the main incentive is to challenge. That makes sense if you want to prioritize quality over quantity. But blockchain is immutable, so the only way to improve an existing POI is to challenge and replace it.

The community has apparently been burned in the past by false promises to replace. Luckily, there is a fix: Challengers can create a duplicate POI with the missing/corrected information before challenging.

Then clearly, one of the two duplicates should be challenged. The original POI has less information, so the map would benefit by challenging the original and letting the new, improved, POI stand.

Nevertheless, the system overall seems unfair to cartographers. The challenger who provides a small improvement should get a proportionately small reward. But why should the initial cartographer, who provided most of the valuable content, lose her entire stake?

I’d be curious to hear from the designers of the incentive system, is the current map the outcome you hoped for? Is it functioning as you expected?


#22

That’s not me (the designers), but here’s my take. TCRs implementations are still new. Their theoretical models starts with the assumption that there is some value in being on the list that is curated, especially being on top of the list.

In case of FOAM, this value is currently in the realm of potential rather than actual. No applications or users come to FOAM Map yet to find coffee shops nearby. When the map accrues enough information to be usable as a POI reference dataset or when its data starts being used by smart contracts, only then this potential value starts turning into actual and the influx of POIs becomes organic.

Right now I see FOAM Map as being in bootstrap phase, pushed forward by cartographers’ enthusiasm more than anything else (not counting FOAM team’s efforts). This is, by the way, why anything that undermines cartographer’s motivation, like over-zealous challenging, is hostile towards entire project. Even though this thorough curation behavior will be normal and even much needed in later phases of the TCR, at this point it’s just plucking the chick that is yet to start laying eggs.


#23

Hi @bluebolt thanks for sharing your perspective and suggestions. There is an upcoming workshop call to discuss improvement proposals to the Map, @nameloceroom is helping to organize and we will share the agenda and collected spreadsheet of proposals from the discourse in advance, hope you can join.

Points in your post have been addressed in other threads as well if you want to check out for reference, have shared my own thoughts about for example editing meta-data, incentives and quality over quantity.

Good points as always @foamspacer


#24

To - GeoPeter and N_O_OB,

Happy to start forming a group to form a voting block. It will require that we enlist the help of others, we can start with Cartographers that have placed POI’s that have been challenged on inconsequential items. Would have to see if we can trace the address for both the challenger and the challenged.

Do either of you have a proposal on how to start.


#25

I think such a group has already been formed, albeit on an informal basis. Someone was mentioning the other day that such frivolous challenges are beginning to fail … I think the community is starting to sit up and take notice.

As GeoPeter mentioned, we need forensic analysts - someone who can visualize for the rest of us how the various challenges are linked … or not.


#26

Let’s hope DIA survive the second challenge …


#27

When does the challenge period end?


#28

Challenge period never ends :slight_smile:


#29

I’ve noticed that most new pois are now being staked at 50 foam. Seems like ppl are adjusting. I expect that soon new adds will radically outpace challenges.


#30

Well to start we need to form some sort of chat or way to coordinate and act. I do not think a group forming to “defend” the map should be on discourse.

I do not have full fledged visuals or forensic analysis at the moment, but I can share an introductory method for tracking and drawing conclusions


#31

Agreed, which is why I posted this:

Over-zealous challenging, is hostile towards entire project. There are basically no TCRs in the wild, there is a lot to learn from this one and a lot of room to improve. But this is an all hands on deck moment, we all have to build the future!


#32

Survived :slight_smile:


#33

now there are duplicates.


#34

I wonder if this is someone trying out that “promised replacement delivered before launching the challenge” idea? Didn’t work if so.


#35

Foamspacer and Ryan, thank you for your thoughtful replies.

As an experiment, I’ve duplicated DIA and Escola Pla de Girona. All fields are identical to the originals, except for Phone & Website that were missing in the originals.

Before I challenge the originals again, I thought I’d ask whether anyone in the community has a strong objection.

If you object, what method do you propose for improving the quality of existing POI’s?


#36

Are you challenging for the minimum of 50 tokens or for the full stake?


#37

I think adding a duplicate POI with the missing metadata information before challenging is a really good way for the community to solve this issue in the short-medium term (before smart contract upgrades can be performed).

Challengers that are concerned with removing low quality POIs will be more likely to win the challenge, and cartographers that are concerned with information quantity being lost to challenges for small metadata omissions are able to keep info on the map.

I think this should be the new community standard. I know I will begin voting for challenges if, all else equal, a duplicate POI is placed with the missing or corrected info.


#38

Even if the challenge is for the entire stake?


#39

There are teams working on ETH address messaging systems. For example ways to email an address.

I also spoke with a team working on chat rooms for ETH addresses, it could for example automatically open a chat room with the challenger and point owner etc.

For Cartographers concerned with the quality of data on the map this could be a means of letting the point owner know with fair warning to either reduce stake or remove the point and re add with correct information. If they do not reply then you could initiate the challenge as a good practice.

This is one idea until there is a sufficient means of editing the immutable meta-data on chain.


#40

It would definitely be ‘polite’ to only challenge the minimum, but cartographers should know that right now with the existing registry contracts, posting a POI with a stake higher than the minimum is risky and provides little/no advantage. If they’re uncomfortable with this they can remove FOAM from their POI at any time to reduce the stake.