Grounds for Dispute


“If it is labeled as an ‘attraction’, shouldn’t there be enough info on why that is so?” Yes. I think so.

“Given that POIs don’t actually have strong incentivization directly, it seems petty to block me from doing systematic and good work for sake of beating me to the pass.” They can’t block you from creating a better POI. That’s the beauty of the design. You can create a better one right there. Straight away.

“So is that grounds for a challenge?”
I would say, 100%, Yes.

“And should I then submit my own and better POI?” Yes.

“Also, challenges take a week. POIs take a few days. Is it standard practice to wait till a challenge is concluded to register ones own POI?” I don’t think that is necessary.

Right now there is no incentive to create a POI first. And I say it often; “First is not better. Better is better.” Be better. Be your best. It helps everyone and everything.


This is similar to the notion of “Graded” TCR’s as well as TCR’s with layers:

Neither models have been implemented in the wild, but great concepts to consider when upgrading the FOAM TCR.


I think “who was first” matters much less than “what is a more correct/complete point.”

Personally, I’m not challenging at all until Proof-of-Use finishes. I think a lot of the junk points will disappear. After that, however, if you can improve a point, I think it’s in everyone’s interest that you go ahead and challenge it and replace it with your better point. The protocol is incentivized this way for a reason.


Perhaps if someone is only challenging a portion of the POI - some metadata beyond the location and basic description there should be a fractional challenge. Seems silly that someone could loose a large stake due to a typo which although technically an error, is “an honest mistake”. I feel like there should be an intermediate but formal phase to challenging specific fields with a fractional reward. I stake 1000 and bork the website URL (or it changes and I didn’t know or notice) maybe I lose 10 and the challenger pool takes that. But not all of it. And maybe that could be part of the voting system - the challenger lays claim to what % of the stake they challenge. If they are greedy and say 100% for a small error they would be less likely to get a quorum, if they are modest they are much more likely to get it and win. Assuming they don’t have a gang of map-hacking collaborators behind them…


Anything that encourages collaboration to iterate towards the truth instead of (potentially) blasting back and forth between “oh yes it is”, “oh no it isn’t!” sounds like a good plan. Staking on top of an existing POI sounds like a pre-vote for the accuracy without any challenge. It would encourage someone to examine the date, communicate any errors for correction before staking on top of it. Well established POIs would naturally become bigger and bigger stakes over time as #metoo stakes pile up making a hostile / malicious challenge (that wastes everyone’s time and resources just maintaining status quo) increasingly hard. I can see some downsides too - since a large number of collaborating stakers could work to establish fake POIs that look “invincible” - those wishing to challenge them would have to canvas and coordinate a large number of voters to do so. But given that you don’t have to match the current stake to challenge there wouldn’t be a large financial barrier to such challenges so maybe it would work.

If there were way for cartographers to assimilate FOAM supported evidence to support their claims - like proof that they have been to the location, or probably reside / work there, plus FOAM signed images from the location - that would make it easy to garner a large number of voters. As I’ve said elsewhere - if you can bias votes by location information that would also place a barrier to malicious users not local or without local knowledge (again there are dangers there such as during times of civil unrest or with malicious governments etc.).


Hey @enmodo! Very good insights and suggestions you’ve shared, for starters, the team is exploring ways to allow partial challenging where a user can challenge on separate items like the URL if it’s wrong and only that part will be affected.

I find your points about the cartels and ways we can solve this to be particularly interesting, cartel voting coercions is a risk in all blockchain voting systems, relevant article here


Those are great suggestions that you shared on validation methods to support POI creation!


I really like this idea. After the challenge is made, a phase of correction should be allowed, if possible. This would require the POI creator to add gas to a contract, similar to updating a POI that is already passed the pending stage but not yet verified. THEN the vote can take place, which won’t represent the error as much as it will represent the correction. The initiator can then withdraw the challenge of press on.


I had a discussion with someone this morning who has their masters in Physical Geography. They asked what happens to a POI in FOAM when there is a territorial dispute about a location on the border of a country. Country A thinks the POI is in their country while Country B thinks the POI address is in their country.

There are quite a few (understatement) of these border disputes:

I told them it would just be a matter of consensus. PhysGeoMaster says it would be in constant flux and exhausting and I said, “Yes! Isn’t that great! One country, or one company (Google, Apple, etc) can’t just create a map and call it truth.” I also said “It’s game theory and really just a matter of economics on a blockchain.” Am I right that whoever has the most addresses voting for their POI gets to keep their POI? Would this not encourage powerful nations to heavily participate and try to own more wallet addresses that they can use to vote on their POIs?

I know this malicious actor discussion has come up before. I see this as the same thing even though, in this case, they’re not even malicious. They’re just defending territory that they understand to be their home or ancestral home.

How will these border dispute scenarios play out on FOAM?


kind of cool to see how POI truth on the map reflects human disagreements i think.
i agree the disputed spaces will likely remain in flux. also ryan brought up the idea of Presence Claims to prove a voter has been to the disputed location to edit the POI.

many cartographers ive met come up with a similar question about disputes and reaching consensus. I know it’s kind of lame, but the only real answer may be for us to simply watch what happens.

also for anyone reading this now, we had some discussion on this topic earlier in this thread - link here: