To people challenging higher-stake POIs for minor defects


Ha, no not secret, but maybe a lesser known feature:

You can select the “Rejected” filter and deselect the others.

This gives us the “Graveyard” Layer.

We also published an analysis of the Map that included these contested points in Asia highlighting this layer. Check it out!


Just realized you can challenge your own POI. That’s nice too. Takes away the punch in the gut after you realize you submitted a TCR with error.


I would recommend just withdrawing the POI instead. You get your full stake back that way.


That would seem to make more sense. Now just have to figure out how to do that, lol. Thanks though… still uncovering tricks of the trade.


Using the same metamask account you used to create the POI, go back and click on the POI. Should just pop up.


McDonald’s was removed, although in my opinion this was not the best PoI and had legitimate errors.


Rockhal was also removed, this one was much closer in votes:

Cité du Vin - Wine cente was also removed


Meatworks Butchery survived the challenge:


I echo @foamspacer 's concern that even if these points had legitimate issue we are not seeing challengers re-add the point with correct data even though they have identified the issue in the challenge.


Agree with @Jimmy_maps and @foamspacer that it’s a concern, though I’m not sure we agree about the solution.

Seems to me that we either need 1) incentives to add POIs or 2) A mechanism that allows for correction.


3) not be a dick and challenge for a +1000 FOAM amount because of a spelling error.


That’s not how crypto works, for better or worse.


I presume 57959 is the number of votes to keep the POI. How about 5050? And the 0? So the challenger didn’t even bother to vote?


The 5050 are the unrevealed votes. Either the challenger did not vote or they did vote and forgot to reveal their vote. But even if the unrevealed were for the point to be removed it would have lost the challenge.


Yeap the Greyed out section are unrevealed votes.

Some probably voted and then forgot to reveal I’m guessing.


Ah … I see. Thanks for the info!


Similarly, the POI for the Berkeley Rose Garden is being challenged because it is missing a phone number and website…it’s a public garden. We are losing information on the map here, because the challenger is probably not going to restake the POI with all the correct info.

I think having less info on the map, but all the existing info being absolutely perfect is a net-loss in the long-run. If you want extremely standardized info, head over to Google Maps. FOAM should contain an abundance of public information, and I think if we had to make the choice we optimize for more info over extreme standardization and completeness.


It looks like a phone number and website are available but weren’t included. Why wouldn’t we want that information?

It’s less about standardization than the fact we want complete and correct information. This POI seems to fall short of that goal.

Again, though, I think we are coming up against the defects of the protocol itself.


I think you should read what I wrote again. By challenging and likely removing it, we will end up with no information. The onus should be on the challenger to restake the POI with the correct info if they win the challenge.


Yes, the onus probably should fall on the challenger, but the truth is that it doesn’t. Why doesn’t it? Because the protocol doesn’t require it. Until it does, I expect we will continue to see these sorts of challenges.

We agree that this is a serious threat to the map; we just disagree on the solution. POI incentives and game theory


Agreed. Maybe as a resolution to this, after a POI is invalidated, the challenger has their winnings locked up, becomes the owner of the POI and has x amount of time to correct the POI and have it validated. If that time passes without it being corrected and validated, they forfeit their winnings, the POI becomes open to anyone to correct, and whoever gets it through gets the winnings.

Would be interesting to hear from someone on the FOAM team if this is technically feasible. @Ryan_foam

Unsung heroes of March 2019

This is a great suggestion for community governance. The first question after it is reviewed then is how this would be implemented safely in a smart contract. A number of other projects have suffered serious set backs to their projects from exploitable bugs. FOAM has gone thru some rigorous review, and it would take a similar level of review to make functional changes.

I hope that we can codify the process that these ideas would work through to a successful implementation after governance has vetted them!

What I am excited about is the possibility for dApps to interact with the FOAM platform, and I think that is where we will see the variety and creativity that all stakeholders are expecting!


I see a promising new trend emerging in the challenge reasons. Snippets:

[…] I will restake the POI with the correct address, if this challenge is successful.

[…] vote to remove, I will replace.

[…] Will correct on the next go around.