Personal assessment of challenges, voting period ending on April 24th


Challenges on solid grounds:

Possibly useful challenges, pointing out what could be imperfect pin locations:

Challenges based on blatant lies with a pinch of nitpickery:

The last batch looks like challenger(s) offering rather generous donation to FOAM voters :wink:

"I will restake the POI. Promise!"

:sunglasses: Voted on them all. I dont think those type of slight challenges should pass at all imo.


I suspect that this challenger(s) is throwing around a lot of weight in FOAM tokens in voting for their challenges.

If you feel strongly for/against these challenges, you may want to make your voting contribution as high as possible (ex. tens of thousands of FOAM).


Am I missing something, or is that not the challenger’s address?


I would like to add The Graduate, a dive bar in Berkeley, as a point with voting underway where the challenge seems suspicious. Full disclosure, this is my POI, but the bar has no official website, and the POI is definitely in the correct location.


@foamspacer I missed voting on some of these and they are in the reveal stage now.

Any new challenges we should be paying attention to?


@Jimmy_maps, it’s the usual suspects, challenges at 1000 and above:

Voting period ending in less than a day.


Thanks. All from the same challenger?


Yes, same account ( and very close in time.


Let’s see how they all turned out aye




Or if you prefer in a table format

No Total Keep Unrevealed Remove
The Department of State Hospitals - Patton 5 414481 5000 0 409481
Trust 9 508931 47450 52000 409481
Public Works 8 464081 54600 0 409481
The Warehouse Cafe 7 463981 49500 5000 409481
Rote Fabrik 8 464231 54750 0 409481
Dome of the Rock - قبة الصخرة‎ - כיפת הסלע 9 511231 101750 0 409481
Base58 8 531231 49750 0 481481
Aspen Pitkin County Airport-ASE 10 541231 59750 0 481481
Coit Tower 10 541081 0 0 541081
Average 8.222222222 493386.5556 46950 6333.333333 440103.2222

They were all removed


Are those outcomes acceptable? If the removal of those POIs was not the expected outcome, that means the challenger has overwhelming force …


This is a little sad. I personally voted deny for the Coit Tower because of the obvious misplacement, but approve for many of the others.


Kezar Bar has also been removed from the map …


Yeah, this is kinda sad. The challenger is voting with a huge order of magnitude. As you can see, with this # of tokens each time: 409,481
At this rate, it looks like i will probably lose all the other points i’ve made that this person is challenging.

It’s a couple hundred bucks, which is I guess enough to make this worth it for them. But the malicious actor will only get more powerful. I agree that this is a good stress test for the map, but I think some of the challenges of voting (commit-reveal, no clear incentive yet financially to stake to a POI, confusing things around voting rules (like, how much you can vote with repeatedly) make it hard to say it’s a productive stress-test at this time.

Anyway, clearly this person has 409481 FOAM and now significantly more at their disposal.
The most “keep” votes on any of these are 100,000. I have three ideas:

  1. a “vote cabal” that organizes against these challengers publicly and discloses the amount each member can commit to vote so we know if we’re close to this number (currently we are not, by an order of magnitude).

  2. Why commit-reveal? Why private votes at all? At this point, I think it simply makes it difficult to see exactly how much weight a single malicious actor is throwing around. It doesn’t provide meaningful privacy, as we can obviously see who the addresses are after the fact. The reasons commonly stated for commit-reveal are vote-memeing and bribery. Do we have any evidence that those patterns exist and/or are worse than the current status?

  3. Should any POI have more than 50 FOAM staked? I assume these points were targeted because they had a significant stake. Perhaps the point of the POI map is to make it relatively unprofitable to engage with either pro or con, so that only challenges come from people that have some other reason to participate (not sure this is a good idea, personally.)

I’m bummed, not because I lost the challenge, but because afaik there’s no way we could have won and the map is being played maliciously.

EDIT: one other thing i guess that the challenger is doing which is beneficial, is getting me to come to the FOAM map and participate :rofl:

EDIT #2: I saw @Ryan_foam mentioned in another thread that a new UI for cartographers is coming mid-may. Perhaps this will help, as it seems we’d be able to better track malicious actors? :frowning: I hope so at least!


@ainsleysutherland Sorry you are feeling bummed and thanks for sharing your feedback and suggestions. The curator dashboard tools will be launching in Mid-May. A preview was shown on the recent Community Workshop Call. The recording will be posted shortly.

It would be great to have you join the next one and or contribute these suggestions to the improvement proposal documents.


Will add that this has been discussed on the forum, but at the moment there is little benefit to staking large amounts of FOAM in your point over the minimum- the trend is this creates a target for challengers and those tokens are likely better served in the voting contract. It is the Cartographers responsibility monitor their points and to withdraw and or boost their stake as they see fit. That said, there are a ton of fantastic community improvements have been proposed; looking forward to the conversation continuing!


Thanks @Ryan_foam for the suggestion-- I’ve now reduced my remaining POIs to 50 FOAM.

Unfortunately, two had already been challenged, again under what I can only understand to be false pretenses (whole foods and berkeley bowl). I’ve moved whatever I had in POI to voting, but it’s not 400K worth :wink: We’ll see what happens :smiley:

Hopefully I can make it to the next call!


Look at the recent Aragon votes. They do not use commit or reveal, so you can see how the vote is going before it ends. With their recent vote some whale came in at the end knowing how their weight would effect the outcome. It is well known on chain voting all together is an up hill battle. I am interested in Quadratic Voting as @nameloceroom brought up. This too:


Thanks for the link, @Jimmy_maps. I believe even TCRs have a similar challenge (perhaps somewhat mitigated by not knowing the direction of the vote). But if the total vote weight is 40K and I have 400K, then I as well know i’m going to sway the vote.

I completely agree re: on-chain voting. I’m likewise looking forward to other tools like quadratic voting.