Signal and POI related questions (high gas, can't find Signal, POI stuck pending)


#1

Hi I have a few issues/questions regarding FOAM and would greatly appreciate any help on these:

  1. How can I find a Signal that I placed if I forgot where exactly I put it? (i.e. can the historical TX associated with my eth address be used to deduce where on the map the signal is?)
  2. High gas cost: What should one do when the price of gas to remove a signal will significantly cut into the value of the FOAM staked?
  3. Can’t remove POI: What if a POI has been pending for nearly a year and I want my FOAM tokens back but there is no button to click to remove them except for the challenge button?
  4. Future improvements: Is FOAM working on any type of meta-transaction to avoid gas fees when adding/removing a signal or POI?

#2

Thanks for your questions – Responses in line below:)

  1. How can I find a Signal that I placed if I forgot where exactly I put it? (i.e. can the historical TX associated with my eth address be used to deduce where on the map the signal is?) Jessica Response:
  • yes, its a little tedious to do but either see if caleb's @foam_cs (Blocklytics -https://blocklytics.org/) stuff can do it
  • otherwise you can find the TX that created it, convert the geohash from binary and then to lat-lon
  • or just give us the address and we can run a query and list all the signals
  1. High gas cost: What should one do when the price of gas to remove a signal will significantly cut into the value of the FOAM staked? Jessica Response: We feel the pain of high gas these days. We are looking into options to use FOAM within other chains without these pain points.
  2. Can’t remove POI : What if a POI has been pending for nearly a year and I want my FOAM tokens back but there is no button to click to remove them except for the challenge button? Jessica Response:
  • There should be an "update status" button on it
  • update the status then you can remove
  1. Future improvements: Is FOAM working on any type of meta-transaction to avoid gas fees when adding/removing a signal or POI? Jessica Response: We love the idea of meta-transactions to avoid high gas fees. We are talking to developers to help us with ideas around this.

#3

If this was a mistaken point, or generalization, then I stand by FOAM. If I understand correctly that you are looking to solve ethereum GAS fees by migrating to a non-ethereum chain then I must challenge that solving for high gas transaction fees(by changing blockchains), is the wrong problem domain for the FOAM team to tackle, as it doesn’t differentiate FOAM from any other crypto project that also has the very same high transaction fees, and this problem is being addressed on ethereum, and that moving to an alternate blockchain misses out on the innovation that ethereum has already demonstrated.

Loopring, Starkware and other ETH2.0 solutions are all completely capable of addressing the pain points of ANY ethereum ERC-20 token economy today, on the Ethereum Blockchain, today.

ZK-Rollup’s and other ETH2.0 solutions that resolve to the Ethereum blockchain are suitable and demonstrable to function for usability and security requirements of scaling all FOAM transactions, on the Ethereum chain. We know a significant amount of resources are going into making ETH2.0 work. I have also seen other crypto projects that changed chains, and wiped out preexisting shareholder value. This is a very radical proposal to casually mention in a forum post and also a considerable movement away from the stated goal of the FOAM project. I will accept that perhaps it was inaccurate or incorrectly stated, though I must counter that any scaling solution on Ethereum that settles to the Ethereum chain is really not a different chain. L2 solutions on Ethereum L1 are contractually bound to the Ethereum blockchain. They settle to L2 to L1.

High Gas will sort out on the Ethereum chain (ETH 2.0 involves sharding and is actively being pursued by Vitalik). Changing to a non-ethereum chain would act as a gatekeeper to market participation in FOAM. The liquidity available on ethereum is second only to Bitcoin.

FOAM is not the only ERC-20 token platform feeling this pain. A new blockchain would introduce unneeded complexity to propose moving to any of the alternate chains. There is also the security implications of such a radical change to the platform. Since there is a significant amount invested in the stability and security of the ETH platform and thus the FOAM ecosystem, the FOAM team must focus on meeting the original stated FOAM project objectives. Those objectives, were what FOAM investors bought.

I must reiterate, GAS is not a problem unique to FOAM, taking the FOAM protocol away from the security of the #2 crypto blockchain by market cap risks 51% and Double spend attacks and other nightmares for the original investors in FOAM.

Signals function in the FOAM economy as a “meta token” of proposed FOAM expansion. As such they are assumed to have been created by sophisticated practitioners, and the intrinsic value of a signal is far above the GAS + FOAM that went into creating that Signal… If you are liquidating a Signal you are trading an asset that is significantly discounted due to time preference, for an immediate gratification.

The tokenomics of the FOAM system state that a reward for locational verification issued by a Zone Anchor are directly tied to both the Age and FOAM stake of a Signal for the relevant Zone. You can never create an older Signal, only a new one, and the stake that you put into it is based on the market spot price and what you calculate the payout will be. Thus Signals function as the Staking mechanism of FOAM with their built in time factor. Newer Signals may only be profitable for a Zone with higher FOAM stakes, and thus the Older pre-exising FOAM Signals will have an inherently higher value than their simple valuation based on FOAM allocation at the time.

Since a Zone Anchor cannot function without the Signal it is a required component. Zone anchors can of course create Signals ad-hoc, and that would of course require a number of FOAM valued at the current market price. All I am saying is that the Zone Anchor cannot create an old Signal, only affiliate with an existing Aged Signal, or the Zone anchor owner can create a new one.

I would much rather the team focus on the mechanics of utilizing and implementing the Signal into the functional FOAM economy than in chasing an alternate Blockchain. Supporting the Ethereum / FOAM / Signal ecosystem is a virtuous circle that would benefit all.

Solving high FOAM transaction costs due to high ethereum gas fees is NOT a core functionality of the FOAM project because the FOAM token is wholly an Ethereum ERC-20 token on the Ethereum blockchain and all other token ecosystems are subject to those same high costs. This will resolve itself. The stakes are too high to let ethereum fail.

It is the same situation we see at the gasoline-pump, when the price goes up, all car driving consumers bear those costs, and the market is incentivized to provide solutions, to those consumers.

Saying I will sell my car and switch to flying, because driving is too expensive is a radical change to my ability to travel and do business. It also means that when the market solves the gasoline price imbalance I cannot participate because I no longer have a car… Or stated another way, even if I sold my gasoline car for an electric one, I am incurring a significant opportunity cost in how and when I can travel. (Travel distance, due to charge, ability to find a charging station etc.)

GAS on ethereum is the cost of doing business, it is a business expense. Ehtereum is a business and big players are solving the issues of marginal transaction costs. While marginal transactional costs can be considered a “good effort” to consider for FOAM, we are proposing that the physical FOAM Zone anchors as they are provisioned and maintained with an actual capital expenditure of thousands of dollars.

A $30-50 fee for interacting with a contract is going to be the last thing that a Zone Anchor operator is going to have to consider when outlaying for that infrastructure and as I stated before, the fee structure is an issue that will solve itself due to many interested parties interacting on the Ethereum network. The retail user of FOAM proof of location, will benefit as all ERC-20 token transactions have their GAS fee costs reduced on the Ethereum network.

Switching away from Ethereum is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

[1] Loopring: https://our.status.im/lets-rock-n-rollup/
[2] Starkware: https://medium.com/starkware/hello-cairo-3cb43b13b209
[3] Time Preference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference#Austrian_School_views


#4

Hi @yinzeus , thanks for your post. The post you are replying to is a generalization, we are not looking to solve Ethereum gas fees by migrating to a non-ethereum chain for the FOAM Map. Agreed this is the wrong problem domain for the FOAM team to tackle and not one we are solving, as you describe this is a problem effecting all applications and there are many teams, some we are close with, already working on improvements and options in the underlying L1 and L2 Ethereum infrastructure. Our team is wholly dedicated to the vision of FOAM Location and is not leaving the innovation of Ethereum.

Supporting the Ethereum / FOAM / Signal ecosystem is a virtuous circle that would benefit all.

Could not agree more and we have in mind mechanisms that can activate Signal tokens as part of liquidity programs and further community and user distribution of FOAM.

I know you are very interested in Signals and markets that can form around them. There have been some recent interesting developments in fractionalized NFTs and AMMs that could function with Signal tokens.