The Corrupt Side of the Foam Community


#1

Thank you for reading the post which took a lot of time.

Recent circumstances have led me to realize how corrupt and highly deconstructive people in this community are massively damaging the project.

Apparently there are people and groups who have stolen thousands of tokens themselves through senseless challenges and apparently can not stand it when honestly interested people work on this project and try to make their contribution and are rewarded with a few tokens.

Probably the greed is so great that they even want to have the last existing tokens all for themselves.

I always strive to make a constructive contribution to the map with my challenges. Likewise, I replaced all POIs and improved.

Here are my last challenges where I had to find out how corrupt the system can be:

There is a voter who has been extremely different from his own opinion than he has voted in his own challenges.

Which brings me to the realization that it was only a matter of personal harm without bringing the project forward.

It is also very interesting that this voter completely ignored the small challenges and did not take the time to study the challenges.

Pay attention to the intervals at which it was voted.
4 votes in a minute That’s simply impossible because it takes time to control the challenges.

In addition, I’ll show you below how this account is linked to other accounts and how greedy this guy is.
For the rest, I give the voter the psychological profile of a gambler.
He made challenge after challenge and at some point he just wanted to do more challanges without any sense. You will see it below.

Its about this account:
https://foam.tools/?#/cartographers/0x869daaa8257abbba3471a909cfa9c728be4d82f4

16 Challanges, 72.000 Reward, 0 Restack

Here we go. Look at the voting frequence:

2:46 https://foam.tools/#/challenges/617
2:44 https://foam.tools/#/challenges/618
2:44 https://foam.tools/#/challenges/619
2:44 https://foam.tools/#/challenges/620
2:46 https://foam.tools/#/challenges/620

There is no room for decision but only purposeful destruction.
It takes up to 3 minutes for some challenges to make sense before you can vote.

Look here how a true Robber acts, i would never deliver challenges like this:

The Address is more than correct, everything is there Street, Number, Post code
He just stole someone a lot of Tokens because he has the highest stack.
5000 Foam , https://foam.tools/?#/challenges/352

Missing “Core Information” Website and Phone. But in my challenges wrong House number or missing Street name is not a core information :slight_smile:
5000 Foam , https://foam.tools/?#/challenges/356

Here he don’t like the Name but is not investing time to put also the website ore phone for making this poi better. Name is fine. Good Address everything was ok here. The Postcode he added is from Google and wrong!
The Hall has exact the same post code on its website as the owner has added to the POI !!!
https://www.laciteduvin.com/fr
2000 Foam https://foam.tools/?#/challenges/353

You can search on your own for more funny challenges of this account.


Now let’s take a look at how this guy created multiple accounts to hide his greed.

https://foam.tools/?#/cartographers/0x41e91e3710a35e39125ce562a380508c12fd1bad
32 Challanges, 27.718 Reward, 0 POIs
Here you can find the connection to the other account:
https://etherscan.io/tx/0xeb812679ad88c3cf198ff08e36d656e0706bcaaec462503d93decaba614ef90b

Please look at how he argues here:
At this point, we can already detect an addictive behavior.

https://foam.tools/#/challenges/512

https://foam.tools/#/challenges/509


Lets go to the next Accunt i have found:

https://foam.tools/#/cartographers/0xbe2ec7c367ca33560a33c666999b46f876c8fc08
19 POIs - wow, 20 Challenges, 18.227 Reward
I dont know if this is realy his ore if hes cooperating with someone. But it seems like its his.

Here you can find the connection to the other account:
https://etherscan.io/tx/0x89a294bf87079b1f40f73a4a84d2c88d36cdfdb3afeb0031582660a95b772a76

Here he allready started to Challange with one Account and vote with the other one.

Lets see some Challanges:
https://foam.tools/#/challenges/391
Eiffel Tower is a very artful Construction, but adicted is adicted u cant change this people.

U guys can make your own research and see how senseless this guy is acting.
Hes one of those who belive that all belongs to him. this people will never be rich in the hart an have a realy poor live.
But anyway why should we allow them to corrupt the comunity in that way.

In my opinion, it needs a KYC Conformation.
This is needed anyway because the earn of tokens in many countries is subject to income tax.

An IP control can be introduced in addition to the KYC.

There should also be punishment for such people.

My question to the founder of foam is, how do you want to go against these people?


#2

Very interesting read indeed.
You investigation is very helpful, I’ve been damaged by a lot of those behaviors when I challenged some POI… will look into, maybe I can find some parallel.

Also- about your KYC proposal… I’m not a fan, I understand that for law-tax is much needed, but maybe also some low level barrier could be built:
Taking advantage from the 3box user verification, Foam can make a KYC-like barrier where challengers should have some infos declared in the 3box profile - for example staking >10kFoam in a challenge or vote is not allowed if specific parameters are not compiled (name, twitter @, pic?).
I know that’s not a definitive solution, but looking at the tools the FOAM team built in the last months (Foam.tools + 3box) should help the cartographers to research more into the challenges before to participate -> building a trust system among cartographers.


#3

Pretty interesting that you and @Elvo are hating the player rather than the game.

The TCR rules are weak and game-able. There should be neither surprise nor outrage that they are being gamed–the rules are known to all.

There are no easy solutions. You think people are going to KYC to contribute to a map that offers them no incentives? Get real. And 3Box offers no solutions to those who want to launch sybil attacks. If the project starts using an IP filter, then there is no point in using a permissionless network at all.

It’s almost like you guys haven’t really thought about what it means to think adversarially and what kinds of actions that the code is actively incentivizing. Instead of getting mad at the person who is gaming the system, why not ask the system administrators why the system isn’t being improved faster? Or (even better) ask it’s even being used at all for this part of the project. I know this isn’t easy to hear, but you really are looking in all the wrong directions.

You are right, in other words, to ask @Ryan_foam what the deal with the TCR is, and why there hasn’t been faster progress on dPOL. I have yet to find someone who thinks that the TCR is the valuable part of the project, yet it seems that most of the project’s resources are being focused there.

@Elvo: Instead of burying my reply with a ton of your own, I ask that you hang back and allow other people to respond. I appreciate that you took the time to write your post.


#4

KYC was a requirement for the ICO. This was done as it was understood with the minimal amount of US government guidance on crypto tokens / assets that this was proper at the time. There were stipulated requirements for that process that included knowledge of the FOAM protocol proposal and specific limits on how much could be purchased without providing additional information (I recall it was a limit around $10,000 USD) A number of people who wanted to participate in the ICO were excluded because they did not meet the requirements.

So I believe that we have already performed KYC in issuing these FOAM tokens. Asking for KYC for transactions that could be as simple as mapping a route across a map between to points could be seen as ridiculous. Such a task would be a utilization of FOAM’s utility token in it’s intended purpose. If we will not then KYC the use of the map, why would we KYC those who use the token to create the points we wish to map between? As for earning or use of FOAM across multiple tax jurisdictions is a larger issue than FOAM and will require a better understanding in the Crypto and Tech industry to allow for those multiple jurisdictions to process such compliance. The United States Income Tax system is the largest and most successful voluntary tax collection system in the world. It’s key tenet is that self-reporting is a requirement. Saying as you have suggested that a particular industry or organization should be singled out for different treatment would not stand an appeal to the supreme court. (Either all industries and income payers are treated the same, or there is discrimination and the existing tax code would be struck down.)

Both of your suggestions will fundamentally obstruct the ability of FOAM to release the documented components of the original Whitepaper. As the crypto space is competitive and we already know that multiple companies are attempting to provide dPOL or similar services, this should be considered a serious impediment to the FOAM ecosystem. Those who are stakeholders can and would be materially impacted by delay or failure to implement the FOAM protocol as originally envisioned. Such suggestions should not be taken lightly and if they are not innocent misunderstandings could be construed as attempts to sabotage an active and functioning project.

I believe you mention IP as in Intellectual Property. Significant amounts of the FOAM infrastructure are built on open source software and data (openstreet maps integration) asserting IP control or ownership could complicate the ability of this project to move forward. I do not ever recall that IP ownership was proposed in the Whitepaper. Such a fundamental change should be discussed more in depth by the community, perhaps with a FIP proposed and championed by someone such as yourself? As interaction with FOAM resources, assets, and contributions is through the FOAM utility token, there is de facto in fact access and control of these ‘Properties’ that you ask for.

You conclude with suggesting that punishment is necessary. While it is unfortunate that someone would suffer a material loss, your proposed fixes could lead to the failure of the project, and thus a complete loss for all those with FOAM tokens. The original ICO participants would be argued in any case to be knowledgable actors, and aware of the risk of the project and use of the FOAM tokens. Once the FOAM project was bootstrapped to a functional service, the use of the FOAM utility tokens can be demonstrated to be by those with above average technical expertise and acumen. Such skills would and should be considered commiserate with usage of the FOAM tokens and risks that they entail. Between multiple expert parties competing in challenges of a subject that is open to debate, without FOAM tokens can and should be construed as the experts simply disagreeing. Is it possible that a valid POI was challenged? Sure and this is functioning as stated in the whitepaper. The ultimate arbiter of truth, is filtered through the lens of what is true for the participants in the active FOAM challenge, as there is no Oracle of truth outside that process.

FOAM as a protocol attempts to approximate a best effort of what is true as relates to the real world. A community led initiative can not attempt anything else without changing the fundamentals of what is a community of interested participants. The use of FOAM is the yardstick by which we score that accuracy, and good enough is all we can hope for as the real world changes. A natural disaster, an act of god or political changes all can materially effect a change in the world that was previously mapped.

Can this FOAM process be improved in the future? Sure I think that with the FIP process now moving forward that some interesting ideas are possible for the POI and challenge process! I personally would like to see all challenged FOAM locked into a time based contract until a POI is resolved. This would mean that we would lean more heavily to creation than destruction of POI, or in another way, say that a proposed POI must be implemented or the challenged funds are not withdraw-able. Such a proposal would require extensive testing. In such matters, simpler is always better and as such I have not proposed this as a FIP as I see POI’s as one component of a vibrant and evolving ecosystem. The balances cannot nor should they be tipped to favor either POIs, Signals, or Zone Anchors, as only through a synergy can a symbiotic ecosystem flourish.

As you have presented your ideas to the community forum I will reply to the community. This is all much larger than you or I.


#5

Thank you for your contribution which I find very interesting. I would also not want to restrict the functionality of the protocol if this happens with KYC or IP contoll.

But there should be kyc for challangers and voters!

You speak of a best possible approach to the real world?
Look at my work that’s exactly what this is about. I was motivated to make a contribution here. My elaborations have in detail outdated Google. But then corrupt people come and destroy this work. Who protects this sincere and well-researched work?
If that does not happen, the basic idea of Foam is equally at risk.


#6

Dude. No one–no one–is “cheating” you. This is ALLOWED BEHAVIOR. How can you not understand that?


#7

This is clearly another attempt to shut down the healthy functioning of the map, just to make a political point to the core FOAM team about fixing vulnerabilities in the map now. Last time, it was challenging based on incorrect claims. This time, it’s shutting down good challenging by only voting to keep POIs, regardless of whether that’s justified.

While I agree that there are changes that need to be made to the map in order to make it more effective at encouraging curation of accurate location information, I disagree on the way that you, @jazzhands, and especially the malicious voter or challenger are choosing to push it. Trying to “force the hand” of the core FOAM team by trying to break the map is not going to work. It’s only going to backfire on them like it did last time.

In building FOAM Location, the core team is literally pushing the edge in geolocation technology. They’re putting something together that no one has done before.

If you want to help tackle issues related to the map, you can start by joining a Community Workshop Call, giving us input on the FOAM Improvement Proposal process here, or even by putting together the first real FIP on one of these issues with the map that you seem to be concerned about (start here). You talk about it being important that this project be permissionless-

Moving these improvement suggestions through a community-governed process begins to decentralize FOAM, and spread input out to the community to create long-term value in FOAM as a network of permissionless operators. You want them to just do everything unilaterally? Not only is it crazy to think that the core team can fix this now, but it’s wrong in the context of what you’re arguing for, which (hopefully) is a sustainable open network.

Whoever the malicious voter or challenger is, if you keep trying to attack the map, you’re going to lose again and you’re going to do even more damage to your account reputation. There are a lot of people that came together to stop this behavior last time, and I’m sure they will do it again even quicker if they have to. I highly recommend playing nice.


09.07. Challanges - decided and finished
#8

I’m just providing commentary.

The actions are not merely political. They are actually taking tokens that have value out of the hands of people who are trying to improve the map. It’s also very clear that this person’s efforts have on the whole been very profitable so far. The fact that they work most of the time suggests to me that the map is not healthy but rather unhealthy by nature. It’s just a matter of time before a bigger whale comes along and starts doing real damage.

You may disagree with the tone of my commentary, but I know that it is providing a focus on these issues that would otherwise be lacking.

You say that ‘now is not the time,’ but the logic of that excuse is lost on me. If not now, then when?

Personally, I think the TCR is just legal protection from the SEC. The true innovation of the project is found in POL.

I’m not too worried about my reputation. I go by a different name in real life(!), not that I would have a problem attaching any of my ideas to my real identity.


#9

At this point I consider your actions trolling, if you cannot draft a FIP to suggest improvements for the TCR.


#10

I decided to register on discourse after reading for a while and having been censored in the past for no valid reasons. I give it a try again and see if FOAM team is more open minded to feedback now.

I think that the points made by @jazzhands are all valid and make sense. If one stays objective and doesn’t get emotional there is nothing to contradict what he’s saying. This is allowed behavior. It’s simple as that. To go deeper, it goes back to the incentives mechanisms that cannot be thoroughly assessed with such a small sample of data and users.

Saying someone is “trolling” because he says something you don’t like or disagree with, while this person talks objectively based on facts, is a bad behavior to push things forward. Bringing the points made by @jazzhands is very constructive much more than many threads I read here that are empty of qualitative content (threads that sound like “FOAM is awesome” “it has huge potential” “it has so many use cases”… wishful thinking vs hard truth of reality right now) and suggesting he drafts an FIP to “prove” he’s not trolling is ridiculous. I’m sorry to tell you that because I like a lot to read your posts, you have great insights and a lot of experience and I usually learn a lot from you but it’s the first time I read a post of you being emotional and subjective. I mean FIP is not mandatory thanks god to express an opinion of FOAM and make absurd assessments of who is trolling or not.


#11

I decided to register on discourse after reading for a while and having been censored in the past for no valid reasons. I give it a try again and see if FOAM team is more open minded to feedback now.

I think that the points made by @jazzhands are all valid and make sense. If one stays objective and doesn’t get emotional there is nothing to contradict what he’s saying. This is allowed behavior. It’s simple as that. To go deeper, it goes back to the incentives mechanisms that cannot be thoroughly assessed with such a small sample of data and users.

Saying someone is “trolling” because he says something you don’t like or disagree with, while this person talks objectively based on facts, is a bad behavior to push things forward. Bringing the points made by @jazzhands is very constructive much more than many threads I read here that are empty of qualitative content (threads that sound like “FOAM is awesome” “it has huge potential” “it has so many use cases”… wishful thinking vs hard truth of reality right now) and suggesting he drafts an FIP to “prove” he’s not trolling is ridiculous.

I’m sorry to tell you that because I like a lot to read your posts, you have great insights and a lot of experience and I usually learn a lot from you but it’s the first time I read a post of you being emotional and subjective. I mean FIP is not mandatory thanks god to express an opinion of FOAM and make absurd assessments of who is trolling or not.


#12

No need to apologize, I’m not here to entertain you. All suggestions effecting fundamental changes to FOAM must be proposed as indicated as a FIP which would be presented to the FOAM community in a conference call for discussion and a decision based on a survey of consensus on moving forward. If the suggestions cannot be presented in that format for consideration, they are not applicable for FOAM. Stating facts does not make a FIP. Asking for a change, is not providing insight on a proposed solution. I am unsure what @jazzhands, @Elvo, or @cartocrypto are asking for technically from the FOAM community. Other than a request for a KYC process, which as I understand it would be an attempt to centralize how POI’s are entered.

Talking about dissatisfaction in general terms here, as I have seen is only Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD). I do not want to see such attacks continue.

Those with an unwillingness to take ownership of an idea, and suggestions when challenged are trolling if they continue. This is by definition telling the community that you cannot discuss your idea on technical merits and that such an idea being without technical merit is not an implementable change to FOAM, and that my friend, is a troll from the day it was dropped on the forum.

From the FOAM FIP guidelines:

Parties involved in the process are you, the champion, owner, or FIP author , the FIP editors , the [ FOAM Core Developers ] or other independent developers . Your role as the champion is to write the FIP using the style and format described below, shepherd the discussions in the appropriate forums, and build community consensus around the idea.

:warning: Before you begin, vet your idea. First, ask the FOAM community (via Discourse or another channel) if an idea is original and sound. This will allow you to avoid wasting time on something that may be rejected based on prior research or discussion. Doing this also helps to make sure the idea is applicable to the entire community instead of just the author. Just because an idea sounds good to the author does not mean it will work for most people in most areas where FOAM is used. FOAM Discourse or a FOAM Community Workshop Call are currently the best places to discuss your proposal with the community and begin creating more formalized language around your FIP.

There are serious considerations to consider for FOAM, and without specifics, when treated as a general issue, we will get nowhere. If the suggestion cannot be articulated in a format for review and consideration, it shows a muddiness of thinking. If you think calling someones bluff is emotional or subjective, my position is far from it as I am happy and open to reviewing cogently presented ideas for changes to FOAM. I think it is wonderful opportunity for those who may have sat on the sidelines to step in and support the growth of the FOAM community as we evolve.

What I’m reading in this thread is attacks on the team, and other FOAM participants. The title of this thread is itself an emotional attack upon the Foam Community.

I explained why I do not support KYC or IP restrictions; such changes to how FOAM would be used are changes to the core functionality of the FOAM protocol with addition of administrative functions that will slow down uptake and adoption of FOAM and will only hinder the growth and usage that FOAM stakeholders are looking for.

While I do not support such changes fundamentally, I do support presenting them as a FIP, and I say that because I can see that they are not thought through carefully and will break how FOAM would function in the real world we are trying to interact with. It is only in presenting a suggestion as a FIP, that the community can properly evaluate such recommendations.

I want to see @jazzhands, @Elvo, and @cartocrypto – if they are indeed the interested parties here stepping up and making a suggestion that can be evaluated as a FIP. That is a small team that should be able to dedicate a few hours to hashing out an idea for a proposal. I’m on the record as not supportive of KYC, or IP restrictions, and you do sound passionate and I’d be glad to see you prove me wrong.


#13

All hail our bureaucratic overlord. No ideas to be discussed unless framed as a FIP!


#14

Personally, I think the TCR is just legal protection from the SEC. The true innovation of the project is found in POL.

This. The TCR makes no sense at all. Usually in a properly constructed TCR model there is some incentive for the participants to be listed on the registry. For example, if I’m a Chinese restaurant owner I would want to be on a highly trafficked list of Chinese restaurants because I may get customers out of it. That the token value may increase is a secondary benefit, not the primary reason to participate. The FOAM TCR has absolutely no primary reason for the listers - why am I going to add the Statue of Liberty? It does nothing for me.

The POL side is going nowhere. Ground based TDOA systems simply don’t work regardless of how precise your timing accuracy is, because multipath reflections will break whatever thoughts you had around the origination and time of flight of the signal. Why do you think cellphone companies don’t already do this? They have towers everywhere in cities but still rely on GPS for a reason.

I see the FOAM updates talking constantly about hardware timing precision but nothing to address the physics of the problem. In a place like Manhattan you are never going to get better than 150ft+ of accuracy due to all the reflections, which makes it practically useless for all the use cases listed on your site.


#15

Wow. It’s beyond my understanding how you get so emotional. Your tone is very aggressive from the beginning, I didn’t even bother to read your post. The truth is the truth and facts are facts. Accept it.

You are showing a very bad image of the FOAM users. It’s not because you have worked on the FIP that you can behave like this and talk that way to people. FOAM is not about dictatorship. This kind of irrational behavior hurts the project much more than what @jazzhands or myself are saying based on facts.

And why bringing the FIP and insisting on it. We are discussing and voicing an opinion. It has nothing to do with a FIP. Having a constructive discussion is what this discourse forum is all about isn’t it ?

Nobody is trolling or FUDing here I mean it’s obvious, if people don’t say what you want to hear or do what you want them to do. That’s life, not trolling.

I hope we can all come back to a constructive and objective discussion here to push FOAM forward.


#16

You tackle a very important point and I would go deeper in your analysis. The FOAM TCR has very little data and users to draw conclusion. The sample data is too small and it would be a cognitive bias to interpret it. FOAM is certainly one of the best working TCR if not the best in the crypto space but that does not mean it is highly used and has enough data to understand how/if the incentives are working.

Moreover until the data of the POIs are used in a wider ecosystem I agree with you that it does not make much sense from an incentive perspective to add POIs because they are not used. This is a growth hacking challenge for FOAM. For the incentives mechanisms to be thoroughly assessed the FOAM ecosystem has to grow and data of the POIs be used, even if it is in a very concentrated are to begin with. In other words what FOAM needs is to reach product/market fit and produce network effects.

This is why I think that the FOAM static proof of location with POIs is not going anywhere so far is because the FOAM team is not focused on growth and product/market fit. The fact that the community and excitement around the project has not grown over the past year but decreased since the token sale shows that the community building efforts is clearly not a priority. Maybe the team thinks it can wait or that it’s not their job or maybe they don’t have the experience to reach product/market fit and grow and build a community. Unfortunately having a breakthrough technology and a better solution will never be enough. Many incredible technologies never made it to the masses. FOAM needs to set community building and product/market fit as a priority along with the development of the dynamic POL to reach its potential. Almost a year has been lost to build enthusiasm around the project and find traction channels to bring targeted users to the map, this is a serious flaw of the project so far. Waiting to have the “perfect product/solution” before focusing on growth and product/market fit is a big mistake that can cost a lot to the project and be fatal.


#17

I decided to register on discourse after reading for a while and having been censored in the past for no valid reasons.I give it a try again and see if FOAM team is more open minded to feedback now

@jazzhands, what the hell u think who we are. Dude this is the worst ever!!!
This is your decontructive signature

Yes, there are people who start the challenges.
Challenges with a sense and increase in accuracy on this map.

But that’s what you say about collecting and processing information:

Everyone can check the data. But jazzhands is fighting against any logic.

And now to believe that someone created an account to defend you because he has read your last posts … come on, everything has its limits.

And that is your contribution when corrupte voter voted against sinful challenges:

This project and community may need a lot to be successful. But there is something that we definitely do not need and that is you!


#18

“The community has spoken” was ironic, which is why it was in quotes.

You’re kidding yourself if you think I’m sock-puppeting. I have better things to do with my life. Instead of focusing on personalities and personal attacks I suggest you start thinking about the critiques that are being offered. They are important.


#19

It would be great if you could share a new post with more explanations on what you think the limits of dPOL are. It would be more interesting and effective to have a focused discussion on dPOL developments and challenges.


#20

Your overthinking and overinterpretation obviously lead you to big errors in judgements. I personally don’t care who is who on this forum. I read thoughts and ideas, I agree with some and disagree with others no matter who shared them. Constructive feedback in essence has to be hard to hear especially for the team. The results and metrics of FOAM so far shows that mistakes have been made and that there are big challenges to overcome to build a community, reach product/market fit, and grow with solid foundation. It’s not all about the technology as FOAM team seems to think from the beginning.

There are countless of references that explains the importance of working on the go to market strategy as much as the development aspect, this means 50/50. One of the best reference worldwide is the famous book traction from Gabriel Weinberg CEO & Founder of DuckDuckGo : summary here

I personally have been waiting for more than one year following FOAM project to see any relevant and consistent effort put in pursuing traction. Might start a new thread but still waiting to see any sign from the team that their setting traction and product/market fit as a priority as well as hiring a world class growth manager. There is no online platform in this world that has grown without growth hacking. Thinking that it has grown from nowhere is an illusion and a dangerous one. FOAM needs to be flexible and learn from its mistakes and stop its “build it and they will come” approach. There is enough evidence in the world and more specifically for FOAM project since a year that this doesn’t work.