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


#21

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


#22

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


#23

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?

giphy

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.


#24

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.


#25

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.


#26

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…


#27

Too many things on my plate lately :sweat:


#28

@Zyndar still time to participate! :smiley:


#29

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.


#30

@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


#31

oh thanks for flagging this @Jimmy_maps. Threaded discussions are a boon and a challenge :slight_smile:


#32

For me, I see a lot of promise in the community improvement proposals. For example:

  • Requiring certain ratio of POI creation to challenging in order to challenge (either by number of POIs or tokens staked)
  • Requiring certain number of POIs to be placed with challenge rewards before being unlocked

It should be assumed that on chain voting will be susceptible to either large voting weight and or those that borrow tokens just for the vote. These kinds of upgrades add some friction to that.