To people challenging higher-stake POIs for minor defects


I’m talking of those recent challenges of McDonald’s (10000), Rockhal (5000) and Cité du Vin - Wine center (2000).

Do you really believe your improvements are worth the amount you will get in case of success? And that POI owners deserve to lose those amounts because of such minor mistakes? For instance, the “incorrect address” of Rockhal is simply about “avenue” vs “Avenue” (Edited: was “rock’n’roll” vs “Rock’n’Roll”).

There is room for improvement with those POIs, but the rewards you are claiming are completely disproportionate with the benefits you provide. I fear that FOAM map is getting cannibalized for short-term gains.


I missed those three, were the challenges successful?

In any case, I agree these are futile challenges for very little tokens. With things like the leaderboard though we can find out more about these Challengers, for example how often they challenge or add points.

Have any that I can look up?


The challenges just started:

These are indeed futile challenges for too many tokens. Something like 50 tokens would have been be a more fair compensation for these corrections, maybe 300 tokens tops.


we’re just gonna have to out vote them until it becomes a cost to them.


I’m not involved, but actually there are serious mistakes in these POIs, it appears.

With respect to the Rockhal, for instance: Esch-sur-Alzette is the street address according to the official website; however, the POI lists “Esch/Alzette.” This is a fundamental error, not a “minor defect.”

Similarly, it’s not a “Wine Center,” but the “Wine Cultures and Civilisations Museum.”

Do you really think these are minor flaws, @foamspacer? I do not. I’m concerned that you have missed the real issues with these POIs and we are on the cusp of brigading against legitimate challenges. What is at issue here is more than mistakes in capitalization.

As far as tokens go, it’s not the challenger’s fault that a huge stake was put up for an incorrect POI. Perhaps this is a problem with the code–maybe FOAM should have capped POI stakes. It’s certainly a game theory issue that will work itself out. I don’t think the answer is to protect bad POIs simply because they have a large stake. This is actually why I’m here–I’m interested in the game theory aspects of this more than anything else.

I agree with @Daryl_Foam: “I believe that information on the Map should be accurate as possible.” For this reason I don’t have an issue with these challenges, especially since there is no mechanism for POIs to be improved without removal.

Our goal should be to have the best maps, not ones that are just “good enough” or “kinda close.”


Hello, @jazzhands, welcome to the forum and thanks for joining!

It’s not even a minor defect:
It’s even on Wikipedia, no need to go to Luxembourg.

No, the challenger’s fault is typing 10000, instead of a more reasonable amount, into the challenge amount box when submitting the challenge.


I really appreciate your point about the street name, though it’s worth noting that what you have cited is the name of a rail station and an abbreviation, not the proper name of the town, which again is “Esch-sur-Alzette.”

That said, overall I strongly disagree that challengers should be expected to only challenge for ‘reasonable’ amounts. Don’t want to get challenged for 10k FOAM? Easy–don’t stake that amount. After all, a successful challenge will remove the POI, regardless of the stake.

Thanks for the welcome! I’m enjoying the collision of crypto people and more OSM minded folks. Should be interesting.


Well, accidents like these is why I never staked more than 50 tokens apiece in my POIs and recommend the same to other people.


Big parts of the augur community are currently pulling off this scam:

-Create market with very subtle mistake in the description (like non native english language)

-Scammers bet on the outcomes that will not win

-Scammers stake REP on the market being invalid

-All staked funds will be distributed equally. So scammers that bet on the wrong outcome will profit.

This makes Augur unusable at this point since basically every single character in the market description can be used to render it invalid. The staking model doesn’t work because the majority of REP holders doesn’t participate.


Agree. Staking the minimum is the way to go as we build out the map.


It’s worth noting that this isn’t a ‘scam,’ but rather a defect of the protocol. If code is law and the code allows it, then it’s perfectly legal. The challenge is to write programs that create incentives that work.


Those are not my words, but from the content of the reddit post.

Yes it is not a “scam” but it is a social attack of coordination and gaming the system for profit.

Because the markets on Augur are being marked as invalid due to spelling errors it appears similar to this FOAM Map discussion.



Not unrelated: POI incentives and game theory


The pattern continues.

FIFA World Football Museum
“Pin is dropped in the wrong location.”

The location is correct, which is easily checked with any online map provider. The challenger is being intentionally misleading.


Do you think this is a sign that the FOAM poi system is broken? I assume it’s only a matter of time before someone builds a bot to automate challenges.


My impression is the fact we are discussing this topic right now is a sign that the system is working. These challenges are still active and this discussion is motivating more to participate and vote in the way they see fit. From my perspective having a challenge period allows the community the time to evaluate and take action.

I believe you earlier made the case that at least some of these are legitimate and not broken challenges.


Yeah indeed. In fact most of those initially listed in this thread seemed like legitimate challenges to me. I think people were just taking issue with the challenge amount being ‘unfair.’ That argument doesn’t make much sense to me. This is the game theory playing out. Given that adding a POI is something that a user does for free, it doesn’t make sense to stake more than the minimum.


Hey all! New here… Do I understand correctly that when your POI is challenged and you lose, then you not only lose your stake but also the POI as one of your cartographer assets? Seems a total anarchy, where poachers take all. I understand that POI’s must be meticulous to serve their best purpose but as cartographers investing time curating, which is worth way more than the current value of tokens and executed in dedication for only hope of future value, does a challenger really not only get to take all your tokens but claim to the POI as well?

I hope I understand that incorrectly, because it would seem then that behavior would be cultivated to land the POI’s in hands of those not local to the area and without familiarity of the local opportunity or vested nature in it. What is worse? A few typos that can easily be edited or landing a POI in the hands of non-locals who will never turn back with intent to create synergy in their communities.

Once again new here, but it would make sense to first have a 24 hour hour window where a curator can give a final glancing review of what they’ve painstakingly submitted. Then progressing into challenging stage if an error were deemed true then it would seem fair that the challenger could take the stake or percentage of, based on gravity, but would also seem fair to permit a subsequent window of time where the original local cartographer could re-post the minimum required stake to maintain ownership of the POI asset, and would only pass to the challenger if no further claim is made.

I may be missing a huge picture though, I realize, lol. Especially thinking of POI’s too much as assets because then we get into a world where they can be traded and we’d need a whole new auction market for something like that.

Anyway, again, and again… new here… but exciting stuff. I believe I see the vision of Foam and all it’s opportunity but there are a lot of other variables that could muck things up with tricky governance issues.

Wouldn’t be writing, if I didn’t think the project was fantastic!


Hi @MurphSlaw welcome to the FOAM community, thanks for sharing your perspective and happy to have you here.

You are correct in your understanding, that if a challenger succeeds the point is removed from the Map (however, there is a “graveyard” layer you can activate to see all removed points). Existing TCR’s including FOAM are binary; either you are in the registry or you are out. While mistakes can happen, those staking should be extra diligent that the information they are adding is correct and free of human error. I have made mistakes myself where at the last moment when hitting submit I accidentally clicked a different area of the Map and the point was added to the wrong location and I was then challenged. A period where the owner can make self edits would be great.

Further, the PoI Metadata is stored to IPFS, using something like IPNS or ENS could allow the point owner to “point” the point’s metadata to a new location with corrected or updated data. ( — for reference. Not exactly production ready for use, which is why we use IPFS.)

This is our analysis of why it is not cost effective to store the metadata on chain.

FOAM is one of the first TCR’s on main net. As one of the first TCR on main net we opted to keep the smart contract logic simpler for live testing with a built in upgrade path, that is deployed and has been audited. This will allow a new set of smart contracts to superseded the existing registry with new features.

It has been a very valuable and insightful learning period to see how the TCR performs in real world conditions.

These are great suggestions, check out the below thread on this topic and as well as further suggestions for what to include in future smart contract designs. Looking forward to your contributions to the community!

We strive for our work on FOAM to be decentralized and open source for any to hook into, build on top of and make contributions to. Foamspace will be launching a developer grant program in Q2 but in any case call are welcome to contribute to the future development of the FOAM TCR as the software has been released as open source.


Ooh, I didn’t realize this existed. Is it a secret feature on