Now is not the time to rest on laurels though. There is still 250K of FOAM locked in 400+ POIs of dubious quality. All those tokens are begging for you to come and liberate them!
Salty! I love it. If nothing else, Ryan and the team are learning a lot about the incentives.
The Top Address just knocked down @Zyndar , our previous all-time top Map Rewards just by voting this month alone. Congratulations!
ICYMI, @Zyndar will be joining us on the next community call, to will walk us through his experiences and tactics for becoming #1
If you’re nitpicking small details and winning on those challenges, you ought to be restaking the POIs with the correct details afterwards. Otherwise, you might be removing 95% correct info for 5% incorrect info, and actually netting less quality info on the map.
“Ought to”? By what standard? Certainly not by the standards of the code. There are zero incentives that provide for this.
There are such a thing as implicit incentives, for wanting a high quantity and quality of information on the map so that it is most useful.
I would like to see this at least experimentally explicitly designed into the parameters or rules of the map, but I have not heard anything about this from the FOAM team.
Agree. The issue is that there will always be people looking to take advantage–it only takes one ‘bad actor’–so there must be hard-coded incentives. Agree that we are waiting on the FOAM team for that.
Hi @nameloceroom There has been a lot of discussion on this topic both from members of the Foamspace team and the commmunity, as well as on the challenges of implicit inflationary based rewards, would be great to hear your feedback on the challenges raised, see these recent threads:
I will argue that the standard need not be handed down on stone tablets, and the incentives, indeed, are already in place.
“One bad actor” can only take as much advantage as the rest of the community allows. Need I remind that voting against the challenge is in no way less rewarding than voting with the challenge? One only needs to be on the winning side of the vote to get the share of the challenged stake, which is equal on both sides of the challenge. So the incentive is there.
The standards of any communal activity (like FOAM Map) are set by its community of practice. They can never be encoded to sufficient detail, whether in form of protocol or legal codex. Failing protocol is akin to failing state, where population’s apathy enables criminals and corrupted politicians to grab increasingly larger shares of nation’s wealth and power. Inevitably it collapses and loses to competing states.
I meant that there must be coded incentives to re-add points that have been removed. I was responding to @nameloceroom saying that “you ought to be restaking the POIs with the correct details afterwards.” Perhaps that is true, but currently there is no real incentive to do so.
I’m fully aware that there are incentives to vote.
I realize that everyone hates me here always “FUDing” but so it goes. I think it’s important to make these points even if they are being misconstrued.
Hey @Ryan_foam. In terms of rewarding the staking of POIs, this is something that I am less concerned about than other community members at this time. Based on the data that I have seen, POIs are continuously being added incremental of Proof of Use requirements. Based on a simple valuation model that I created, I actually think the long term implicit and explicit rewards for staking POIs is much higher than people have speculated thus far, which I am planning on sharing with the discourse community soon.
My concern is with the continuous failure of challengers to restake POIs with correct data, especially after winning challenges on POIs with relatively small omissions or mistakes in metadata. I believe this is detrimental to the health of map, especially when considering a phenomenon you referenced in another post:
If there indeed is a division between POI creators and challengers, challengers seem to be winning in terms of total rewards, and when they are not adding their own POIs even after removing a former one, it results in:
- Less information on the map
- A positive feedback loop whereby challengers accrue tokens, have more tokens to challenge other points, and gain more weight in voting on their own challenges to then again accrue more tokens
In situations such as these, where we can point to a specific issue in the TCR, I think implicit incentives to have a successful map need to be codified into explicit parameters and rules. After all, isn’t blockchain all about incentivizing and codifying systems to behave certain ways rather than trusting the implicit motives of strangers?
Suggestions that I have include:
- See my post from earlier, below:
- Not allowing challengers (and POI creators) from being able to vote on their own challenges (and POIs)
- Increasing the proportion of tokens that challengers must stake vs POI creators, especially when a POI has already been validated
- Allowing for public commenting on POIs to notify or nudge creators about small defects
- Requiring a certain percentage of challenge rewards to be used in POI creation, before being unlocked
- Requiring a certain number of new POIs to be placed after winning a challenge, before rewards are unlocked
- Requiring a certain ratio of POI creation to challenging before being able to challenge
- I really like @foamspacer’s ideas here, which I know you acknowledged:
- Have you at all considered quadratic voting for resolving challenges? I realize it would require more progress in decentralized identity.
- POI editing. I realize this has been mentioned many times already
I really hate to see quality info lost from the map because of flawed incentives.
Thanks for this post @nameloceroom ! Great to see this collection of proposals, it is the seed of a working specification of an updated registry model, along with other great suggestions also posted here.
Interesting point of view. Looking forward to seeing the data you are collecting, let us know if you need any assistance with accessing data directly from the API. I tend to agree with this sentiment, and think long term incremental additions will build into network effects of applications as opposed to sporadic spikes of activity from pure promotion. Of course reducing user friction, like a starter pack for new users to be on-boarded will certainly help.
One upside to note on this, is that while these points are no longer on the registry, _the points and their metadata still technically exist on the Map and on the blockchain by this I mean, when a point loses a challenges is loses the status of being verified and on the registry, but the data about this point is still on Ethereum, and that is immutable and permanently there. Further, the point exists on the “removed” point layer, which you can turn on from the list card functions to see old points no longger on the the registry, but still on the map and blockchain.
So, this data is not lost. But great point! How do we make sure that Cartographers re-add legitimate points that were wrongfully challenged and removed from the registry back to a Verified status. I am not going to dive into your suggestions one by one just yet, but I think they are all great and hopefully opens the discussion further for this thread!
I would also like to open for discussion what are preferred means for contributors here to further collaborate on a specification of smart contract upgrades? A workshop call etc?
Additionally, can think more of means to organize efforts of restoring points to verified and or creating centralized rewards for restoring, thoughts?
Yes! https://rhombus.network/ Our friends at Rhombus are pioneers in Quadratic Voting and also based at our offices in the New Lab. We are also in collaboration with the Enigma network on the future of TCR voting, see: https://blog.enigma.co/private-voting-for-tcrs-with-enigma-b441b5d4fa7b
3Box released profile integrations right at the time of our leaderboard beta and has now released decentralized comments, great synergy!
Glad to hear that those suggestions are being saved off.
On this note, I’d be happy to host/assist in hosting/participate in a monthly or quarterly call to gather and discuss community-proposed specifications for future smart contract upgrades. It seems like discourse is a great breeding ground for new ideas, but it might help having a more synchronous and high-bandwidth discussion to discuss them over the phone once every so often.
This is something that I will think about.
I agree that there should be a mechanism for (1) re-adding legitimate points that have been removed, and/or (2) “challenging a challenge” to signal strong support for a challenged POI. Case and point, the POI for the Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex was removed today, which undeniably was within the bounds of the complex. See below my post from the other day about this-
It’s unfortunate seeing these points go, even if temporary, and I truly believe it has to do with unoptimized TCR parameters, that result in unbalanced power dynamics between POI creators and challengers.
Great to hear about the Rhombus Network and Enigma collaboration, and 3Box commenting. Keep up all the great work you guys are doing.
FOAM Improvement Proposals
100% agree with this.
Thanks, @nameloceroom, for this list of proposed measures. Here’s a quick review:
Even better, in my opinion, if 1) challenger would be required to declare in advance the new state of the POI and 2) the proposed change would be applied automatically (Feature suggestion: challenge with proposed changes)
I think it makes it simpler, more transparent and removes opportunity to betray voters’ trust. Effectively, we would be voting not against defects, but for improvements.
This limitation is trivial to sibyl around. Challenger only needs to transfer tokens to another account and can vote at will.
This would have unwanted effect of inhibiting all curation, including beneficial.
When communication channel is both cheap and permissionless, it is vulnerable to spammers. So it must not be cheap, in which case I don’t expect it to be popular.
No problem. Create POIs just to satisfy the requirement, then withdraw tokens as soon as possible and profit.
Same as above.
Yes, the idea of throttling challenges based on account’s contribution history, which I find quite clever
Not too familiar with all its implications, but as you point out yourself, it doesn’t seem to have any sibyl resistance. Vote from 100 accounts and keep your voting costs linear instead of exponential.