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


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.


Am curious to know if the 409,481 came mainly from one address or not …


Yes that’s important to know. I’m not sure how to look that up though.


It’s upsetting to see these points go, but it’s also a good wake-up call for the community in a few different ways.

Over the long-term, we can make improvements to the registry contracts based upon people’s input here on Discourse and during the Community Workshop calls. I urge everyone to continue theorizing ways of preventing malicious or misaligned map behavior, post them on Discourse, and/or come to our next Community Workshop call.

In the short-term, we need to come together and vote down these challenges, given the current mechanics of the map. I personally voted 40,000+ on each one of these challenges, most of them (besides Coit Tower) to keep the POI on the map. I was disappointed to see that only 0-10,000 more FOAM was voted with me, given all the discussion about saving these POIs here on Discourse. What happened to the Map’s Watch?


It’s important for everyone to understand two things:

  1. You can’t lose your tokens while voting
  2. You can use the same voting credit is as many different votes as you want

Please contribute as much FOAM as you possibly can to any current/future malicious challenges. There is nothing to lose, but a lot to gain.


The Map Watch may have operated just fine in terms of the number of people who participated–it’s all for naught, however, if people simply don’t have access to large token amounts.


I personally didn’t know about concurrent voting credits at that time. I am now voting on all current malicious challenges with ~90,000 FOAM. It’s not enough but hopefully we can get closer.


You guys with 40K and 90K FOAM on your hands are real whales relative to what I can muster :slight_smile: I will keep doing my part though.

I wonder what @Zyndar is dong with his spoils of war; by the look of his account - not much…


Too many things on my plate lately :sweat:


@Zyndar still time to participate! :smiley:


It occurs to me also that once FOAM liquidity is better, it might not be inconceivable for someone interested in manipulating a vote to temporarily buy a ton of FOAM using a loan just for the vote period, without incurring capital gains or losing eth exposure even temporarily.

Currently i think that the slippage is too high to make it worth it. But it is further evidence that something about the current incentives may need to be tweaked, because that should not be a risk-free practice.


@ainsleysutherland this was discussed by @Schott in the other thread. This is a threat to every kind of on chain token voting:

Someone can borrow tokens to sway votes. It is already happening