questions / concerns for the Anoma Foundation

[storm stag]

okay go!

[viral cosmos]

19th even better, lfg

[fierce carbon]

another thread 😄

1. what comes first to the mind, especially for the tools/explorers/etc
   as for me, there should be 2nd round of re-verification that the tool still works and is supported (somewhere at the end of SE)
   and only after that confirm the points
   a lot of "explorers" are not working or not in sync atm
2. RPCs: this endpoint is enabled by default once the node is started, just posting ip+port doesn't mean "support as service". It should have a domain and reversed proxy at least, and be synced most of the time. Otherwise, it is useless
3. Uptime: must be calculated based on the block_window and not straightforward from the 1st block, even take avg somehow maybe or get points when you are above and get fined when you are below the threshold (unfortunately, hard to implement this mechanism now probably)

[runic bison]

Regarding uptime calculation and jail.

If a validator ends up in jail, even with a functioning unjail, considering that it takes several epochs to exit jail, they would not be able to score points for 99% uptime. Then why should validators who monitored their uptime, did not miss announcements and recoveries, suffer and lose points? I believe uptime should be the category that awards the most point

[lapis spoke]

Then you are really awesome, hope all your nodes never go to jail,

[sinful linden]

To make everyone happy, we need to reward those who have never been to prison and calculate uptime using block_window

[runic bison]

Regarding asymmetry, why should finding a bug, for example, be rated higher than uptime?

[sinful linden]

But regarding the question, I don’t understand how you can implement the task with shield actions - it seems like a very big problem, even theoretical, to complete it)

[minor sierra]

Bro you get not enough point for pregenesis for 2 tasks up your validator in last 5m and submit bonding ?
pre-genesis always has benefits when they the new and always know how to start validator first.

If you need fair remove 2 points of pre-genesis task oke ?

[edgy salmon]

post genesis also have the same task bro 🙂

[storm stag]

while i agree with Point #1, can we go with this Q:

"Can ROID awarded for S Class submissions (like running an RPC) be revoked? if so, how long must eg. an RPC operate for in order to retain ROID?"

[minor sierra]

Nope.. look again we never have same task :))

[edgy salmon]

the same roid and only post genesis can get it

[minor sierra]

which one ?

[next walrus]

agree with you

[edgy salmon]

Initialize your validator post-genesis (not pre-genesis pilot only)

[alpine falcon]

what about someone that will submit RPC only the last day? Still get points but not need to monitor for example. So people that had submitted earlier would be penalized maybe

[minor sierra]

nope thre is 100 pre-genesist and there is more than 10k genesis

you think same total roids share is the same ? =))

[alpine falcon]

what about the change-consensus-key bug, that forced a lot of validator in jail? how do you count this?

[granite cairn]

Well, already said this once in SE-100. But there has been quite a time at the beginning of the expedition where only SE-100 knew of a chains revival. It has been quite unfair for a while at the start.

[minor sierra]

that's true

[storm stag]

agreed on Point #2, but these requirements weren't laid out in advance of the game. no standards were established, unfortunately, so i think that this one is a lost cause

Point #3 is addressed, no? in Q.1b

[edgy salmon]

agree #1 and #2

[sinful linden]

Vote for 95% of all proposals. Due to the very large number of spam votes (which require a large number of coins, 2.5 coins gas. per 1) and their short duration, perhaps only suggestions from the team should be considered?

[storm stag]

there's nothing in place to differentiate this, in terms of scoring

[minor sierra]

Correct.. you can't vote all proposals.. that is issue with faucet + gas

[edgy salmon]

agree

[alpine falcon]

so you can't consider the mainment of the RPC for firsts submitter because it could penalyze them VS last day submitter

[opal flint]

like giving points to everyone who didn't go to jail.

[fierce carbon]

yeah, #2 is tricky as it was not required to be maintained by the rules, just created ) but at least it should be not a default ip:port
#3 meaning uptime of the validator, which is not shown now for everyone yet yep, 1b

[granite cairn]

Hmm also tricky man. You could get jailed simply because of the late announcements back then.

(don't know if some were).

[storm stag]

so the issue here is the assymetry in NAAN distribution, yeah? like some validators had plenty of NAAN to vote on spam proposals, while others did not

if so, this is covered in Q.2b

[alpine falcon]

and also the change-consensus-key bug

[storm stag]

the way submissions are validated is that the RPC submission is checked once--is it working? yes: points, no: nothing

[alpine falcon]

yes, so it's ok like actually is. Or to say better, team could plan better the points evaluations for RPC/Indexer, but at this point of competition you can't change rules. This is my opinion, at least for this point

[runic bison]

There are those who are not in s-100 and kept up with everything and updated themselves, they just followed closely.

[granite cairn]

Not sure if it actually was a bug this one. Though yeah, it was definitely not clear that this wouldn't auto create a new key. Someone had to get jailed in order for us to realize that this would happen. And in our case it wasn't just someone, it was a jailfest 😅!

[storm stag]

added "and operations information" to the end of Q.1b, ty!

[north perch]

here are my points

• Regarding uptime, this is a very critical category and it will decide many things regarding mainnet validators. If you get jailed due to double signing, it means you didn't handle your validator state during a critical moment, which can certainly happen in the mainnet as well. So, sorry but you deserve to get double signed and jailed . (I would accept it if I were in their shoes.) Some of us have managed to achieve 100% and 99% uptime. How can those people achieve that? Certainly not just luck. So, they deserve those points which differentiate them from validators with lower or no uptime . For uptime calculation, I would go with @fierce carbon's comment above. if all of validator suffer same uptime issue the its fine . but due the fact that some of validator managed to keep uptime in a perfect manner it will not be fair to equal them with lower up time ones .

• Regarding the same person winning rewards from the same pool, well, due to the fact that there are very few rewards (only 200) and hundreds of competitors, I will vote against this. I suggest only allowing one person to receive only one reward, and they have to choose which one they want if they are eligible for both. Keep in mind that if this were known beforehand, I'm pretty sure all of us would sign up and win in both categories (pilots and crew), and most pilots would beat the crews, which no one needs.

[alpine falcon]

but also it was missing a function to create the new priv_validator_key.json, so no way to resolve this issue until it had been released

[fierce carbon]

I like how quiz bots work in Discord, but it is too late to implement
The faster you answer correctly, the more points you get
RPC could be the same: the faster you created it and longer supported give more points

but just words now, can't be done already, as an idea for the next project 😄

[edgy salmon]

I dont like this game

[storm stag]

@fierce carbon does this represent your question? for the hackmd doc

[fierce carbon]

flawlessly I guess

[storm stag]

agreed
this part of the game / evaluation needed to be better considered

[alpine falcon]

this could had been a good way to weight also the points for RPC/Indexer/Explorers, but now as you said it's too late to implement it

[granite cairn]

Yeah very true indeed! If it wasn't for @terse wave PR we wouldn't have come up with it ourselves, unless we jumped into the code to decypher it.

[granite cairn]

Lol, dude. That's not how it works. Those who knew, had insiders who were kind enough to share. Think most SE-100 saw this as an opportunity to keep the circle small for uptime and don't let this info leak unwillingly.

Which I completely understand, we're in a game after all. Though the advantage came directly from "higher up". Which leads to the conclusion that this is a bit too unfair now.

Or atleast that it needs some extra consideration. Not to immediately scrap it.

Cause that has a level of unfairness in it as well.

Just a difficult case it has become...

If you speak of updating based on seeing a github release. Well, this already went wrong not too long ago.

[runic bison]

Do I understand correctly that the asymmetry of points is due to the fact that relatively few people receive points for it?
Then let's remove all categories of tasks that few people completed?)

And we will all get the same number of points)

[minor sierra]

If you look at the task for pre-genesis and post-genesis you already can see 100 pre-genesis share the same ROIDs and 10k post-genesis share ROIDs 😂

[storm stag]

i feel you
Point #1 seems to be covered in Q1
Point #2, does this work for Q3b? "it should have been disclosed that participants can register as both Pilot and Crew"

[alpine falcon]

let's restart it from scratch with new rules!! 😝 In the end, it should had lasted 2-3 weeks, we are now at the 6th week planning for a hardfork v1 on the 7th and more weeks to come for v2 😅

joking obviously

[storm stag]

@runic bison @granite cairn we can't debate this here, that's not the purpose of this thread

it seems pretty straightforward to me and is covered in Q1

[minor sierra]

I'm too tired bro.. hope we can finish this.

[alpine falcon]

me too me too

[north perch]

for #2 i am aware that anyone could signup for both but i am talking about rewards . it will not be fair to give same person rewards from both pools . putting in mind that there is no benefit for the project or SE if you get rewarded for running RPC twice or running IBC twice . its not logical at all .

[edgy salmon]

too tired man, I slept 3 to 4 hours/day

[storm stag]

okay let's stay focused! i feel you, the SE has gone on too long. but we can't fill the thread with unrelated stuff

pls review https://hackmd.io/Y9iktVIeTTaCni-4narjOg

and lmk if there are reasonable questions / concerns that have not already been included

[storm stag]

good distinction!

how's this?

"if one participant can be rewarded as both Pilot and Crew, this should have been disclosed"

[minor sierra]

I can say not much effort was spent on all S class tasks also if you worked on the first 4 S subclass tasks for both crew and pilot.

[edgy salmon]

I dont understand 3a, will the winner have to KYC?

[formal edge]

There are people signed for both and running a single rpc node under two different domain names

[alpine falcon]

this can easily checked

[north perch]

exactly which is not logical at all if you rewarded them from both pools when you have very limited winners ( these winners should be unique ) and give chance to others

[storm stag]

idk.. these are the t&c https://anoma.foundation/shielded-expedition-terms-and-conditions

[edgy salmon]

OMG I just found out about it now. Thank you

[lilac swan]

b) if one participant can be rewarded as both Pilot and Crew, this should have been disclosed

I don't quite understand this point. What exactly is being disclosed here?

[storm stag]

i think the idea is that participants should have been informed that they can participate as both Pilot and Crew simultaneously

perhaps it should be reworded

@north perch thoughts? this is your point to add to the hackmd, i wanna make sure i represent your concern

[lilac swan]

Got it

[storm stag]

Q.3b "participants should have been informed ahead of registration that they can participate as both Pilot and Crew simultaneously"

[granite cairn]

I'm not seeing directly anything that says one should KYC. Though to verify the things mentioned (like your location, not being in a sanctioned place etc) might require one to KYC. Perhaps this is also interesting to get clarity on.

[edgy salmon]

haha just my confusion, my English is not good.

[storm stag]

i need to step away, i will try to return in ~7 hours

pls alert <@&1059560907589566464> if debates break out, this is a task specific thread

we are discussing and synthesizing questions / concerns that should be added to https://hackmd.io/@gaving/SkfYu80a6

special thanks to @wicked imp for initiating this ❤️ really appreciate your help and attn to nuance

[north perch]

Yes that is one thing

• ( this should be disclosed and well being informed to all from the start )
• if same person / entity win in both pilots and crew then they need to chose either to win prize from pilot or crew and cant win prizes from both pools . due to lots of reasons ( very few winners 200 ) , diversity unique winner , easy to manipulate and win tasks ( RPC example above using same machine different domain ) etc

[granite cairn]

Thank you, Gavin.

[golden pagoda]

Check #750 and #752 in the sheet 😄 Every pilot could just sign up for both categories (edit: I mean crew and pilots) and simply submit exactly the same task twice? I dont get it, should be clarified

[steel fossil]

Regarding the sybil issue I think KYC will solve it all

[cold patio]

Questions from the Validatrium team

1. When is the unjail patch?

**2. How do you calculate the uptime? **We're interested in it because the Namada network was down for so much time, and we have a bad uptime for now, unfortunately

3. When will the SE end? You said that it would be after the hard fork, but the network was down, and we would love to make some node tasks for more ROIDs

4. When could we do the tasks like voting on upgrade from v0 to v1, v1 to v2, and start our validator ASAP after the upgrade height? We can't find the ways to do these queries. Why were these tasks lost? Or?

[golden pagoda]

#📣-se-announcements message

[vernal nymph]

Except KYC is antithetical to crypto in general and Namada in particular. But Sybils have to be taken care of, I agree.

[split gorge]

I think that one user with a lot of task and transactions will be better than sybils

Maybe we can add S class rating task

[vernal nymph]

You would be surprised about our findings.

Maybe it straightens out after the NEBB is updated, but for now I can tell you Sybils are quite influential.

[edgy salmon]

I don't think we have too many Sybils because the mission is quite difficult

[split gorge]

agree

[fluid pebble]

Yeh getting rid of uptime is crazy. There are people scoring so many points on CLI tasks that clearly don't have expertise running nodes

[vernal nymph]

There are many dormant participants that may have given up or lost interest. On the other hand there are quite active Sybils that want to get or stay in the top 100.

[fluid pebble]

What bug? Worked fine for me

[split gorge]

If you lost interest i don't now how u want win?

[edgy salmon]

I think they will drop out of the rankings soon when all the S missions are evaluated and their scores are updated to NEBB

[golden pagoda]

It's a complicated question. Of course, you are in se-100 and your uptime calculates correctly, what about people which are running validators but their uptime is not calculated AND the Nebb calculates all the uptime not in a window, so it's not fair? My uptime calculates correctly, but it took me a while to get in the consensus set anyway, so this point must be re-thinked

[golden pagoda]

Only se-100 leave positive emoji under this message 😄

[fluid pebble]

Didn't realize it doesnt calculate if not in se-100

[vernal nymph]

What I mean is that there are dedicated Sybils that may have the skills to submit S Class Asteroids.

[golden pagoda]

There is a bug and entire thread about this here: https://discord.com/channels/833618405537218590/1209184672270123019. I am not se-100 but my uptime calculates for some reason, I doubt I did something special though.

[edgy salmon]

completely problem

[opal flint]

It looks like team need to somehow separate this task for genesis and post-genesis validators

[fluid pebble]

yeh that makes sense to me

[opal flint]

genesis validators restored the network and some of them definitely deserve points

but some clowns don't realize that and put emoticons under posts.

[wicked imp]

You're more than welcome. I'm glad to contribute in any way of form

[golden pagoda]

We must praise them forever

[opal flint]

I think that the team should hold a vote among genesis validators about the uptime, because in this channel there are a lot of bots and clowns who do not understand and do not decide anything

[granite cairn]

I understand your concern. But as Gavin said before he went, could we not use this to start debates or put too much emphasis on one particular case. It's already addressed in the MD.

I kinda went in on it myself as well a couple messages back 😅. I apologize for this.

[golden pagoda]

Uptime is not just genesis validators task

[ebon cloak]

hard agree on #2

[ebon cloak]

because there were reasons beyond our reasonable control that landed us in jail such as notably lack of information that you guys in shielded-100 had and we did not. (which meant a lot were unjailed on second restart before anyone knew what was going on - this was before gavin took over comms)

[ebon cloak]

well they aren't monitored so can't be awarded, and one category is exclusive to shielded-100 (which means max 100 participants for a lot of roid)

[ebon cloak]

tell me, is a category with 100 or 10k participants most worth?

[ebon cloak]

100%

[granite cairn]

Hey @ebon cloak haahah, before you continue responding to everything. Gavin asked not to start debates in this chat 😂. You might unleash the kraken here.

[ebon cloak]

some of us have been working quite diligently to not miss a single vote

[granite cairn]

All love btw, I like to always see your point of view. But have that in mind.

God I feel like I'm censoring 😂, Elon would ban me.

[ebon cloak]

it's absolutely doable

[ebon cloak]

a lot of us were

[ebon cloak]

dude I've been here 24/7. we simply were not informed before network was long up and running through you guys

[granite cairn]

There's no stopping the unstoppable pretetetrtoroo

[ebon cloak]

as I've said before, it was known beforehand. is it fair that those of us who were told we could compete in both categories and have prioritized doing that suddenly can't?

[ebon cloak]

it was disclosed

[north perch]

can you share exactly where it was disclosed that same person can win prizes from both pilots and crew?

i will wait for the link . Thanks

[granite cairn]

😂 It's gonna take a while before @ebon cloak sees the lower parts of this chat.

[ebon cloak]

it most definitely won't. kyc is easy for sybils

[edgy salmon]

I forgot it 🤔

[ebon cloak]

oh sorry, I was just going through from the top

[ebon cloak]

sure, give me a sec..

[granite cairn]

It's okay, it's okay! You're super enthusiastic. Perhaps it's good.

[ebon cloak]

here now 🙂

[native geyser]

About point #2 : Because just top 100 each leaderboard , lack of rewards, and then let some pro + devs can take rewards of both seems will take chances from others. I feeling unfair if someone on Pilot beating me on crews board. So i vote against this and have the same point with @north perch . Lets make a poll about it 🙂

[ebon cloak]

a poll isn't exactly fair when most are not competing in both. of course a poll will vote that way. still looking for the posts, sjcrypto

[native geyser]

Because rewards system right now already a little bit unfair in distribution ( a lot of complains ) but i feel still acceptable. But let one person can win prizes in both board will make this even worse.

I mean pilots are experts and have lots of exp in some kind like this competition right ? Thats making them having lots of advance.
Otherside, crew board seems at a low level than pilot board with easier tasks. And let crews compete directly with pilots really put them on absolutely weak side.

[ebon cloak]

#👋-general-chat message

#👋-general-chat message

in discussions on s-classes, spork confirmed a few times it was within the rules to submit different tasks within same subclass to each participating class. with that information I built double tools and put in several days of extra work to build an extra tool for the ecosystem. (will try and find those answers too).

I'm told park confirmed at some point as well, but haven't found that one yet.

[meager granite]

about uptime. can we separate the methodologies for calculating uptime for pre and post genesis?

the uptime calculation for post-genesis should start with 3 epochs, because if the validator creation transaction was signed in the very first blocks, then the first 2 epochs of potsgenesis were still inactive and could not sign blocks. accordingly, through no fault of their own, they have zero uptime for the past 2 epochs.

[north perch]

these show that you can sign up for both , and that i already said i know . This doesnot show that you are allowed to win in both when you are same person .

[earnest venture]

what's the point of participating in both? just wasting my time?

[north perch]

its up to you to join both . but winning prizes ( if you are same person ) was not disclosed from the start and it is not fair and not beneficial for the project , ( what the project will win if same person run rpc or ibc on same server under different name , and ( this is my personal point of view )

[ebon cloak]

So your argument is that because it has not explicitly been said you can win in both but just participate (with different s-class and all), then of course it's not a given one can get reward in both categories? the rules clearly state the top 100 in each will be rewarded.

I mean I can understand the argument for changing the terms even if I don't agree, but pretty clear to me that it would be a change.

[earnest venture]

Yes I agree with you, I participate only as a pilot, but I think it should have been specified in the rules at the beginning of the testnet.

[north perch]

if it was disclosed from the start all of us will join the crew and win prizes and it will be a mess . i already said my points above .

now i need unique ppl to win ( just imagine top 10 are the same in pilots and crew ) !!

[ebon cloak]

I'll refrain from more debate as this isn't the place, but I don't think this is a fair approach at all.

[north perch]

exactly lets let team decide . Thanks

[ebon cloak]

I'm all for debating it, just not here 🙂

[void bison]

there will be only 100 winners, more than 50 of them are well known names in this space with established reputation
you don't need to perform KYC to find Sybils in ~50 technical people
you can manually check public contributions, github, twitter and S class tasks
also this expedition is already overwhelming enough to be Sybil resistance

[edgy salmon]

The difficulty of the task is enough to kill the sybils 😂

[lilac swan]

I think we don't need to conduct a Sybil check, as the tasks outlined by Namada itself serve as filters for Sybil. They are not easy, and neither a cheater nor a non-tech user can access them.

In particular, regarding Pilots, the majority of participants are affiliated with teams, organizations, or private technology companies.

As for Crew Members, we have a total of 129,241 Crew Members, with only 100 individuals receiving rewards. Therefore, Sybil checking is almost unnecessary 😂

[ebon cloak]

there are several obvious sybils in top 100

[lilac swan]

But if the team still wants to check, then go ahead, and do it after grading the entire S Task 🙏

[past timber]

interesting topics. my main concern is quality of explorers and security issues
some explorers are too basic. also some security issues has been reported over and over and got points
it needs to be proportional based on quality of the work in my opinion(I know its easier said than done)

[copper egret]

I will add here again, it was made clear that a competitor can join as both pilot and the crew right from the beginning and the team thought this would encourage healthy competition. The task for S class are not trivial so competing as both pilot and crew does take a significant amount of time. So if the participants are submitting separate and unique submission for both, they should be considered as they have invested a good amount of time in finishing those tasks. Team has clarified this multiple times and there should be no doubt or questions about this, this later in the competition.

@north perch if you are allowed to compete in both, it’s only fair you will be eligible for prizes for both.

Anyway, I hope the team, sticks to their word. It’s funny to see SE-100 participants though argue this, as they are already gaining significant advantage due to extra tasks which are only available to pre-genesis participants.

[north perch]

yes lets let team decide . Thanks

[copper egret]

The team already clarified the rules to begin with. I hope they stick to the original rules clarified multiple time. Thanks

Improving evaluation of S class, submissions especially Bug fixes is what I would suggest.

[ebon cloak]

same. that area can be improves without nullifying everything

I will say this on reflection though: If sybils are not addressed but classes are voided, in effect the ones being open about registering once in each category are being punished, while people who have separate monikers and accounts are free. (I also don't even think these points belong in the same category under no. 3 - they are completely separate issues) and yes I agree with spidey - if this was to be changed, it would make sense to do at the start of the competition, it's been brought up several times and we put in the work.

[jade shadow]

I feel there's no need for a Sybil check, firstly because Namada is a privacy project, and it shouldn't expose users' information completely. I also believe that the difficulty of Namada's S tasks is thoroughly sufficient to resist Sybil attacks. As for S tasks, there shouldn't be any rule changes midway since it's a competition. Any rule changes now would undoubtedly be unfair to those who submitted the S tasks before or will do so later. However, I think community incentive measures should be adopted to encourage sharing among everyone. Right now, in the Discord group, there's mostly just questions being asked and not many people answering. I think this isn't conductive to the community's development.

Those community members who frequently answer questions should be rewarded.

[edgy salmon]

totally agree: "Those community members who frequently answer questions should be rewarded."

[ebon cloak]

no disagreement there 😅

jkjk

[granite cairn]

Haha you're king in this.

[copper egret]

Gavin, adding to this. A lot of us had asked multiple times in discord while registering and during the competition and this was confirmed. Hence as a result a lot of participants have been diligently participating and finishing tasks for both (I am not talking about Sybils but genuine participants ). They should be considered and for a lot of folks competing in both is a way to maximize their rewards, as they aren’t part of the pre-genesis selected group 🙂

It’s been 5 weeks into the competition and this has been clarified multiple times. If one is allowed to compete, it’s only fair that they are eligible for rewards for their submissions. Changing this again this later in the expedition is not fair to anyone who has put in significant effort for more than a month in finishing the tasks

Again, this is my opinion. Just wanted to communicate my point of view. Thanks

[fierce carbon]

if a person competes in two paths and there is a statement that submitted S-tier tasks are different in both then it would be fair to calculate only S-tier for the path which that person will choose. This will eliminate all similar A/B/C tasks that can be performed just by duplicating the console: e.g. pilot - all A/B/C+S; crew - only S

[ebon cloak]

this doesn't make any sense? tasks are completely different from crew and pilot?

[fierce carbon]

A? interact with protocol? different?

I am ok with any decision the team will make coz as said a lot of times I do not care about others' points I care only about my own, and they are not huge unfortunately atm
but it is super-easy to open 2 consoles, assign all diffs to variables, enter duplicate mode and just do the same stuff in two windows simultaneously 🤓

[ebon cloak]

and everyone has had the opportunity of doing just that

if they wanted to

[fierce carbon]

totally agree, that's why I am saying as well "we can't change the rules on the go"

[ebon cloak]

where did you say that 😅

[fierce carbon]

just that rule needs to be written and signed by blood and not only words in chat somewhere

[ebon cloak]

this is my main point btw. discussion would be very different from my side if we weren't nearing the end and people want changes

[copper egret]

Competing in both or allowing users to compete in both, is by definition doing the tasks in both. If they are doing these independently and not claiming same task in both, I think it’s fair. IMO the main things which are decided are S class tasks, which take a significant time to complete especially bugs and tooling. So if a user has spent time completing both separately, they should be considered 🙂

Doing these tasks has also results in users finding bugs, so the team has benefited from this excessive testing. I have personally found more bugs as I was trying to compete for both, and I will say I was able to hunt a few good ones. So I think overall it was been beneficial to the protocol

[fierce carbon]

that's why I am saying different S can be rewarded, but the same A probably not, but this is not signed anywhere and we are at the end...

if you'd asked this question which one would you select?
pilot - all A/B/C+S; crew - only S
or
pilot - only S; crew - all A/B/C+S

btw, I just do all that is valuable without looking to what is for crew and what is for pilot 😄

[daring solstice]

Uptime competition concerns:
a) unjailing bug and other client/chain instabilities

• • There is a big question about this because many people, including me, have been in prison since the 13th era and due to a bug I still can't get out of there... it is also confusing that class S tasks are checked for a very long time ..

[jade shadow]

In actuality, we should check if the team had clearly stated in their rules before the start of SE, whether one can only participate once. This isn't a matter of fairness, but a matter of rules. If it wasn't clarified, then everyone has the right to participate multiple times. But if it was pointed out, then doing so would be a violation of the rules. We must act according to the rules. If the rules are changed randomly, or a certain community member labels someone as a Sybil without definite evidence and assumes a certain address to be the so-called Sybil, that's indeed unfair. After all, anyone can be accused if someone wants to find fault.

[copper egret]

Same here. I did all this initially without looking for crew/pilot. I am still looking for bugs, cause I want to improve the protocol. But that doesn’t mean the rules should be changed now, as these submissions are legitimate as per the rules of competition . As for A,B, C, why change anything now. Cause S class is usually the deciding factor, and almost everyone will get the A,B and C tasks right?

[fierce carbon]

the only statement was that if you registered the same tpknam for both then the team is leaving you in pilot only
but there are no any words about different tpknam in different paths 😄 so, not restricted

[copper egret]

It was clear from beginning one can participate as both a pilot and crew and again this was asked and confirmed multiple times 🙂

[fierce carbon]

only with different tpknam registered in form, and it was not stated, it was not restricted

[copper egret]

Yes, you can’t use same address, as that would be using one submission for both categories on account of memo being identical.

You need independent submissions and hence independent address

[fierce carbon]

still interesting, which choice? 😄 from those two

[opal flint]

It looks like the team can't seem to promote their people to the top of the leaderboard and they decided to change the rules, someone already wrote about the corruption earlier.

[fierce carbon]

really, stop that please, it was funny on the start, but now...

[copper egret]

Sorry, didn’t get your point 😅

What are my choices

[novel musk]

I would ask you to refrain from making such statements.
You can look at all the leaderboards and evaluate the work of the participants there, as well as see their activity even here in discord.

[fierce carbon]

if you're asked this question which one would you select?
pilot - all A/B/C+S; crew - only S
or
pilot - only S; crew - all A/B/C+S

[copper egret]

Ah, you were talking about this. Got it. I would say Pilot- all, Crew - A and S will be it. Cause A class roids are hidden and by definition you never know which task triggered it. But again, I think changing rules now is unfair

[fierce carbon]

ha, no, you can't select A for both, that is the trick

coz A are coming from console duplication 😄

[opal flint]

This is my personal opinion, the leaderboard worked for two days during the entire testnet, now there is also an attempt to change the rules.

[copper egret]

Anyway. This is just my opinion, all activity has resulted in finding bugs, so any activity shouldn’t be discarded. This increased activity has definitely benefited the protocol, especially hidden A class tasks, which were the cause of a lot of bugs.

If the rules are changed so late in the game, it’s unfair to those who competed until now.

Anyway, I gotta get some sleep. Will catch up later.

[lunar zephyr]

@storm stag
on the governance it was hard to vote on some proposal due to the first restart taht were not announced in advance.
Multiple times whe had "ok we will keep you posted when the restart will happen, anbd then next message, the restart has already happened"
it makes me miss some votes because nothing was announced, and I was so busy fixing my node I didn't cared about voting ot bonding on antoher node than mine. I think the 99% vote could be restrained to the moment the chain was running smoothly and not in th first days were it was really messy.

uptime is indeed unfair beacuse only the shielded-100 was notified

[granite cairn]

Well, I guess debating couldn't be stopped in here 😅.

[lunar zephyr]

since I'm jailed from almost the beginning and cannot unjail like many many people, I think uptime calculation has to be modified regarding this, or discarded

[granite cairn]

This is a problem though, think Gavin didn't want this to happen (here) so that he could easily track what should be included or not included in the hackMD. Now it's a lot to go through.

Has there been some new points made? Or all just extra views on already noted concerns?

I'll go through the chat and see if there are any after sleeping 😴. Gn everyone.

[novel musk]

Looks like the highlights have already been added.
Gn 🤝

[north perch]

Gn ZEN

[granite cairn]

Thank you!

[ebon cloak]

1. the sybil issue is real, and it's forbidden in the terms of the competition 2. if you are refering to openly competing in both classes, that was explicitly allowed when asking team

[serene mirage]

There will always be many dissatisfied people; you can’t please everyone. I was not selected for Pre-Genesis, they only award the top 100, but I have to live in these realities and fight for my place. regarding uptime and the problem with unjail - these are competitions, there is a bug, look for a solution, you could make a new validator and delegate it to him, then you will have time to gain uptime, you need to look for your asteroids, and not wait for something, this is a test and not the mainnet.
the market is not waiting, it’s time to get out, the kyc and any checks will be very delayed, we are already stuck here.
Regarding participation in two categories, I simply did not know that it was possible to fill in different addresses and participate twice. this was not described in the rules, so I think many, like me, simply ended up as pilots and cannot participate in the crew category. Good luck everyone

[sage ravine]

Mina had an interesting way of dealing with sybils that should work here as there are few winners. Interview each winner for 5 minutes and ask them basic node operations questions. Thats 1000 minutes of time at 200 winners total. A team of two people can soam dunk that.

[marsh crescent]

This is a privacy project. I don't think that should be done by this way...

[sage ravine]

Everyone will have to kyc anyway, for legal reasons. Whats a 5 minute interview? Just a thought.

[marsh crescent]

As for the same person participating in both pilot and crew tasks, I think it is unreasonable. But what is said is said. Perhaps it could be immediately announced that, from now on, the same person can only choose to continue submitting in either pilot or crew as a remedial measure.

[marsh crescent]

I don't remember team said there would be kyc. Can you point it out?

[dire cloak]

Agree

[dire cloak]

We are in decentralisation era what heck is kyc.

[sage ravine]

The CHAIN is decentralized, the FOUNDATION giving you the rewards is KYC. Two totally different entities.

[ebon cloak]

won't address the core issue.

[sage ravine]

I think it would. Passports are easy to get as a favor or by paying someone, but the people giving the passports can not pass a basic technical interview 90% of the time. I recall mina killed like 30% of the group who were sybils. Turning in, sleep tighht guys.

[marsh crescent]

Whether it would or not, I think it just should not be done in this way. You can even ask for full KYC like holding your passport and answering questions from team through online interview. It's just not right, especially for Namada.

[ebon cloak]

the point is to do well here as sybil, demonstrating technical knowledge won't be an issue. but that's not the problem - the problem is simply employing multiple wallets in a deceptive fashion.

[ebon cloak]

only thing that matters imo is on-chain.

[neat lava]

web3 no kyc

are u drunk to ask anonymous team check KYC and other shit...
ask project which based on anonymous things, do some video check ...
I haven't participated on this because tasks are hard for me
but I just reading what are u writing and this is funny

U'd rather do S tier task instead of writing something here

[fierce carbon]

you know NYM right? 😄 And how they select who to give the delegation, privacy project with privacy geeks 🤓 and video interview+kyc
so, everything is private until you are required to pass some legal stuff

[minor sierra]

I wonder why the team removed all ppl use the same tpknam when registered. That issue comes from the Team when they don't know how to award points to both crew and pilot tasks ??. if it's not restricted user registers for both pilot and crew but there is no way you can award for both crew and pilot. I also agree with @north perch =>

Regarding the same person winning rewards from the same pool, well, due to the fact that there are very few rewards (only 200) and hundreds of competitors, I will vote against this. I suggest only allowing one person to receive only one reward, and they have to choose which one they want if they are eligible for both

When we tell about the effort spent for both first 4 S subclass tasks it will not double the effort spent. I'm not telling about task for crew can easily complete that.. don't tell about hidden tasks for both crew and pilot will be the same or not. Just another terminal like @fierce carbon said

[steel fossil]

Yes. There are many ways to fight sybil if only 100 people. :)))

[crystal dagger]

Community members understand that the team is very busy and there is still a lot of work to be done before the mainnet arrives. Community members’ voices are at risk of being ignored. Now, whenever community members talk about the Narmada Shield Expedition, they are skeptical and speculate that it is the work of Rat Barn. Once such public opinion is formed, it will cause great harm to Namada. After all, the purpose of the foundation spending 30 million tokens is to expand the Namada brand, not to turn it into a 200-person orgy and self-enjoyment. Once it deviates from the community, or this abnormal reward mechanism will cause damage to the Namada brand, besides creating 200 millionaires, what value can the project gain by preventing expeditions?

In the end, Namada's cover expedition worked overtime for two months. In addition to the top 100 winners, other participating community members have also been working hard, spending time and energy to build the test network. The team cannot let those community members who worked hard but did not enter the top 100 get nothing, but the top 100 received huge bonuses. This is obviously unreasonable and unfair. It is recommended that the scope of rewards be appropriately expanded (either for the sake of fairness or to reward hard-working community members). The foundation can set aside some additional tokens to reward community members who work hard but are not among the top 100.

[royal belfry]

Hi, I've been watching you for a long time, you're in the top 10 but you act like you're below 101, you write that you're here 24/7 and you don't work? You are either a schoolboy or a sibyl, only sibyls are as active as you, I have seen many times sibyls sitting in chat rooms 24/7 and writing that sibyls should be removed, but in fact they are trying to remove competition and promote their accounts as much as possible, I assume that you are so worried because your accounts are at the bottom or you work in a team and you and your team have low results? I have watched a lot of chat rooms and these tasks few people perform, ordinary people are not able to do so many tasks, that's why very few people participate in the testnet, although it was announced 150 thousand wallets, so what are you worried about? Even large well-known sibil refused from this testnet, maybe someone is here, but I see in the chats as people work in a team, and your behavior shows the opposite, that you are sibil and your accounts are down, so you are worried and sit 24/7.

[jade shadow]

If we're just looking at the chain, Namada has only been running for such a short period of time, people's behavior will be highly similar, leading to easy misjudgment. Even if we were to determine a Sybil, it should be done by the officials, not by a community member. If a community member were to make that decision, then I have every reason to suspect that the member might falsely accuse others of being a Sybil for their own benefit.

[jade shadow]

Indeed, I've always been suspicious that he constantly accuses others of being Sybil in order to promote his numerous Sybil accounts and gain rewards.

[jade shadow]

I think your statements have pretty much exposed your intention of being Sybil. Since you cannot find so many technically savvy people to showcase technical knowledge, you reject other people's suggestions. As we all know, for professional Sybils, it is quite easy to make on-chain interactions completely different. On the contrary, it is normal for ordinary users to have similar behaviors because they have watched a tutorial or followed a KOL's call to download and rush in at the same time. It seems that you just want to achieve your goal by attacking normal users.

[marsh crescent]

Although I don't agree with letting people join both pilot and crew tasks at the same time, because I think it makes it impossible for regular participants to win any rewards. Big organizations and good programmers will take all the prizes. This test isn't like a hackathon, where fewer people win, but it's very different. So, it shouldn't be like this. But, blaming @ebon cloak is not right. He's been very active and helpful in this test. The problem is with the team for not thinking about these issues. Now, the team should quickly figure out a solution, but we shouldn't cancel what has already happened.

And I never saw he "attacked " someone...

[jade shadow]

Indeed, this is just my subjective judgment, and my speculation about others was wrong, for which I apologize. However, determining someone as a Sybil based solely on certain similarities in on-chain behavior, without any firm evidence, I believe, would be making the same mistake as my previous remarks. I think that even in the case of investigating Sybils, it should be done by the official team rather than community members, because only the officials can ensure relative fairness.

I believe the reward scope should be expanded, as undoubtedly, there are far more than 200 people who have put their efforts into this competition.

[royal belfry]

Look he sits in many projects, if he is 24/7 and writes everywhere, then he looks like a sibil, because only sibils can afford to sit in 10 projects 24/7, you can sit in 20 projects, but 24/7 is only sibils.

[fierce carbon]

why are you all above looking like bots chatting with each other? 😄

[north perch]

and because of that i think we need to add point to check sybils..

[fierce carbon]

maybe award sybils with some useless poap on galxe 😄

[ebon cloak]

not just another terminal. I don't know why you guys keep propagating things that just are not true. I built twice s-class because told I could

[ebon cloak]

that's bs. my presence here speaks for itself. aside from this, it's curious how someone who joined the discord feb 18 has been "watching me" (also my account is stuck on nebb. when it unsticks I doubt I will be in top 10) I have to say too, it's quite special throwing accusations against me for being "too active".wtf

[ebon cloak]

sir your comments give the same impression......

[minor sierra]

Check. this comment again #1217492400575086622 message
you build another S class task you can choose that only.. remain is the same ABC task and first 2 sub S class task..

[ebon cloak]

look I've said everything I have to say about that above. I think it's super shitty to try and change the rules after the fact and when we've already put in the work when confirmed multiple times by team it's possible. I don't really have anything more to say than that

[minor sierra]

Ok let wait for team check on that

[ebon cloak]

my guess is team will listen to majority opin. I still don't think it's cool but that's just how I feel about it

you would feel the same if you put in double time for s-class (and other) under the impression it would get credited

[viscid tapir]

Changing the rules of the game when the game has been going on for a long time always sucks. But it bothers me that for some reason everyone here is trying to give a crap to the other - they don’t give you additional roids for this, why do this?) All these aggressive discussions and accusing each other of sibiling will not give anything, this expedition is not an ordinary testnet, here you need to apply some technical knowledge, I don’t think that ordinary sibils from other projects are capable of this.

On hackmd there is an item about the fact that it was possible to perform a testnet as a team - what does this mean, several people under one account perform a testnet, or several people under different accounts, but with the same s class tasks?

[serene mirage]

It would be better to answer, what about tokenomics? the news about locks for five years will surprise everyone later.

[ebon cloak]

certainly hope not

[minor sierra]

Can't tell exactly what is double time here for which task . Like I said except you telling me you are building different tools for submission.
Also, I don't see the Team saying you can award both crew and pilot... If it's oke why did they remove all ppl submitting use the same tpnam is it issue belong user or Team ?
if it's oke they need to solve it and ask them to use different public key instead.

[ebon cloak]

look they have confirmed repeatedly it was ok, that's not what we are discussing here. I see your point about the choice to conflate the same addresses, but again it's been confirmed over and again by team it was ok to participate in both, so we have.

[graceful bramble]

i absolutely agree with you

[arctic stratus]

Question about the jurisdiction of the participants. The rules say that Ukraine is banned. I would like to clarify that this applies to all territories of Ukraine or only to the territories on which sanctions are imposed (Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk regions). I know that many projects simply take a list of countries on which sanctions have been imposed and do not specify by region. As, for example, it was in Celestia. There, too, Ukraine was banned, but after the issue was addressed, Ukraine was allowed to participate, with the exception of the regions that were subject to sanctions.

[true kite]

Maybe a week, i still not jailed

[waxen berry]

If one user-one account. We need indentify by Idcard?

[crystal dagger]

We hope that the team will not only take care of the interests of the top 100 winners, but also take care of those community members who have worked hard but are not ranked in the top 100. Please expand the scope of rewards appropriately. Thank you.

[opal nest]

I suggest that the team still think about the minimum reward for conscientious SE participants who maintain uptime and update on time. We are your community, although we can’t do much, I made the RPC (and don’t say that the RPC should be with the domain, it’s technically the same thing.) The success of any project is mutual respect between the team and the community.

[storm stag]

i follow what you're saying, but i'm not sure how to address this beyond Q.3b

like how to verify who is playing which role? if one individual plays as Crew and Pilot and wins both, then a friend could step in and claim the Crew prize on their behalf

while the game itself seems flawed, i think what we're trying to address is the porblems around the game

[edgy salmon]

I don't think too many people give mnemonic phrases to others. Simply check that person is an individual and owns a reward/participating wallet🤔

[storm stag]

1. ideally Tuesday, it's the v0.32.0 hard fork
2. my understanding is that it's: (your signed blocks)/(all blocks produced)
   (personally i think that this calc is flawed bc being outranked in the active set shouldn't be considered downtime)
3. we intend for at least one week notice. we'll propose that the competition will end one week from Tuesday, but it's up to the Anoma Foundation
4. not sure what you're asking

these Qs are kind of off-topic. we're trying to collect competition concerns for the Anoma Foundation to review ahead of the end of the Shielded Expedition

[storm stag]

great! added this as Q.5a

[storm stag]

okay but that isn't the purpose of this thread
we're just collecting concerns and questions for the Anoma Foundation to review

[storm stag]

there is a lot of debate happening for not wanting to debate here 😂

[copper egret]

Got it. Wanted to put my point across to support folks who are currently participating in both categories. I think the debate kicked in this thread even though that wasn’t the purpose of the thread.

[storm stag]

consensus votes? covered in Q.1c, no?
or do you mean governance voting?

[ebon cloak]

oops

[storm stag]

not cool, and if accusations like these continue, i'll mute you in this thread

[storm stag]

great Q! added as Q.5b
"Rather than a blanket ban on eg. Ukraine, the Anoma Foundation should be more precise about excluding only the territories where sanctions have been imposed (like the Celestia team has done)"

how does that look?

[rose tiger]

Hi sir, It mean next Tuesday will close form submit for S task right?

[lofty vessel]

Can you remove the scam post in #👋-general-chat please @storm stag

[edgy salmon]

Are there any hidden mission-related for the crew? like, init a proposal? become a steward? I think it needs to be removed because the faucet isn't working and the crew doesn't have enough NAAN to do it, just people who get some NAAN from the pilot or someone who's registered but doesn't participate in the competition. It's unfair to most of the crew

[storm stag]

i'd like that, but:

1. it's the Anoma Foundation's decision, and we're awaiting word on that
2. things may not go according to plan

we (Luminara 🔅) are committed to getting everyone at least one week of notice before the end of the competition

[storm stag]

covered in Q.2a, no?

[rose tiger]

Thanks sir

[edgy salmon]

oh yes, it is covered

[arctic stratus]

Yes! Thank you

[agile snow]

That's why they are hidden. I know participants who bought test tokens from other people, went to chats and begged for tokens from those who registered but did not participate. If they are removed, it will also be unfair to them.
In particular, I had to work hard to get tokens and become to the steward.

[edgy salmon]

it is considered to be removed

[storm stag]

no more debating pls

[lyric merlin]

This is ridiculous

[abstract tulip]

absolutely agree on all points 🎯

[astral pine]

It's just hidden. How you know ? Anw, Just request some NAAN from some SE-100 player like you. Keep crying and they will donate to you =]]

[terse wave]

Haha Thanks my honors!

[lunar zephyr]

I meant governance

[split gorge]

Hey, when we go to v2 with hardfork blocks will start from 1?

[lunar zephyr]

probably not
it's the purpose of the fork, to duplicate the BC from it's height in 2 different path , old and new

[storm stag]

@here can you pls take a final look at this doc? https://hackmd.io/@gaving/SkfYu80a6

[vernal nymph]

2b or not 2b

[split gorge]

2b good question

[crystal dagger]

@storm stagSir, the Namada Shield Expedition has been running for a long time, please try to put aside the controversy and select the top 100 winners. At the same time, please expand the scope of rewards appropriately so that community members who have worked hard to shield the expedition test network can receive some compensation. Now in a bull market, we all hope that Namada will have a good listing environment.

[lunar zephyr]

good for me

[ebon cloak]

3b should be rephrased as a question, not a conclusion (also would be ideal to have there that it was confirmed in advance). re uptime (point 1) worth noting almost no post-gen have their uptimes recorded (due to presumed bug) and this needs to be fixed as voids several pilot class points

[astral pine]

@storm stag I think 2a is not fair. It's hidden task. Some user have to spend a lot of hours to discovered theses tasks. And now you want remove that=]] Are you kidding me?

[glacial marten]

Dear @storm stag Why did Hades advocate for the exclusion of tasks involving proposals and stewards? Neglecting these tasks could be seen as a disregard for the players' contributions and involvement.

In a game, fairness is essential

[minor sierra]

Also 3b that is not matter now if Anoma said oke we forget to inform what is next ? Why team remove ppl submit use same tpknam key ? Why not inform them resubmit ?
I dont see mention about question about governance participation. We should vote all proposal or only importal proposal created by team ?
The gas and issue with chain halt and restart is not able for everyone to able catch up and vote.
What is different between 1c and 2a ? @storm stag

[storm stag]

i noted 3b as a concern, not a question. what's the question?
my understanding is that there's no bug, it's the uptime calculation: uptime = your_signed_blocks / all_blocks

[storm stag]

the purpose of this doc is to note concerns for the Anoma Foundation to consider

wdym "And now you want remove that=]] Are you kidding me?"

[storm stag]

there shouldn't be any advocacy here

the point isn't to debate what changes to make, the point is to identify what potential issues the Anoma Foundation should review as we get nearer to the end of the competition

[storm stag]

re: 3b, can you write your question again? i'm not understanding what you wrote
re: 1c vs 2a, it's the same problem causing two different issues

[ebon cloak]

there is definitely a bug with uptime. almost no post-genesis have any uptime at all (in spite of being in consensus for many epochs). were we not discussing this in a big separate thread?

[ebon cloak]

"should it be allowed to participate and received rewards in both crew and pilot categories, noting it was permitted when asked beforehand and during expedition?"

[storm stag]

@velvet dock can you pls weigh in?

[storm stag]

"there are participants concerned that there wasn't adequate notification about SE having no registration limitations, ie. one individual can register, participate, and be rewarded as multiple Pilots and Crew simultaneously"

i'd like to lock this thread at this time tomorrow

[ebon cloak]

I do feel it should be mentioned somehow for balance, that it was explicitly allowed before and during

[minor sierra]

I can't send link here so you can check my pm @storm stag . Thanks

I added this question because not see it in your note :

How is rate for task will be calculated :
average governance partitipation rate of at least 90% accross shield expedition.

There are too many Proposals that are trash. And image you busy for 24 you missed this or your node sync to slow before can catch up with the network and to able to vote after that. Since assymetries in NAAN distribution and gas are crazy you will run out of tokens very fast when voting all proposals.

[ebon cloak]

some of us voted diligently on every proposal because it was important..

[minor sierra]

and almost of them is trash.. if you can sure you did vote all proposal you are oke :))

[velvet dock]

I thought it was resolved as being just a case of validators not being tracked because they didn't include a memo with the init validator tx

but maybe i'm out of the loop, does it go beyond that?

[wicked imp]

No there is still a problem. I dont have any uptime, and Im sure I added my memo at creation, as I created with "become-validator" and not "init-validator'

[fierce carbon]

I recall that used memo in init both times: genesis and 1st restart)

[ebon cloak]

totally not the case. it was never like that either. if you check #1209184672270123019 there's an entire thread on this. I've been advocating we should be able to manually submit our validator addresses as somehow nebb clearly hasn't caught our actual addresses from the init-commands issued.

[serene mirage]

but if you know the problem, then you must look for its solution. this is a competition. You can always create a new validator and delegate the entire balance to it, that’s what I did. uptime will increase. I think there are a lot of mistakes and injustices, the nebb doesn’t work, nothing is clear. then they will create an appeal form for everyone, then maybe kyc. we need to finish as is and move on. otherwise the bullrun will end

[ebon cloak]

um no. I don't think anyone has been successful with that. This was not a case of not having the memo field, this is a systematic case of uptime for almost all post-gen not being registered. it's a sufficiently widespread systematic issue that it should be addressed. Otherwise I agree with you in principle on most minor issues, but this one is so big it needs to be addressed

[fierce carbon]

meaning you can spin up multiple validators with the same memo and all of them will report the uptime 😄 wondering what will happen then, is it some kind of HA without horcrux? 🤓

[fierce carbon]

@storm stag @velvet dock one more thing to add to the questions list, missed that point previously
"Should S-tier builders tasks be evaluated according to their complexity manually?"
It can be not fair to give the same roids to the people who cloned explorer (or any other tool), made small changes and posted, and those who developed smth unique and complex from scratch.
I recall there was such call previously but not sure if it is still in touch or all passed applicants just get the same piece of cake.

[wicked imp]

I can definitely relate to that 😄

[north perch]

+1

[marsh crescent]

Totally agree on this. Although mine is just a modification of someone else's work, I am not skilled in front-end programming. I believe that unique work deserves more rewards

[ebon cloak]

I agree with the basic sentiment. My solution would be to be a little harder on criteria and not award minor modifications points at all.

[sage ravine]

Im partial to this idea but it would kill the discord and maybe the testnet. If you mess with peoples allocated points there will be a revolt. And if you judge later people more harshly than earlier people, same.

[ebon cloak]

I don't think later people should be judged more harshly than earlier people, but if something is clearly a copy and not independent work..

[cold patio]

Hey team! How about the unjailing process? 👀

[sweet ivy]

This has been mentioned several times, and I think the team made it clear from the very beginning that it doesn't matter if you submit the task at the beginning of the SE or at the end, you will still get points. I also don't think that changing the rules of the game halfway through is fair and right to the community. Many people have built explorers, most of them are similar, but I don't think that's a reason not to give them points for their work, right?

[ebon cloak]

agree in principle on your sentiment (which tbh I feel also should apply to the crew/pilot debacle), but my scenario in which there has been little to no independent work has more to do with the quality of the work and less to do with the timing of submission. obviously it shouldn't give points if I check out someone's github, set it up, and pass it off as my own creation. where the boundaries go from that scenario to fully original work is a situational judgment call I think. just weighing in my opinion

[sweet ivy]

the submission just has to be of good quality, this is the most important rule for S class IMO

[ebon cloak]

agree, but it obviously can't be an exact copy of someone else's work.

[dire cloak]

everyone prepare your NAAN

to vote on my pgf proposal at epoch 48😆 😝

wanna see how it feels to become steward

[wicked imp]

This is probably not the right channel too advertise your proposal...

[dire cloak]

Yeah i mistakenly sended here.

[storm stag]

do we have a reason to believe that the calculation is different from:
(proposals you voted on) / (all proposals)

[storm stag]

i will add this
but yeah, the game appears to be made to ignore quality beyond a threshold of yes/no

i think that there should be special recognition and rewards for high quality submissions, and our team is tracking these

[storm stag]

thanks for championing this, we'll investigate
@velvet dock will be in contact by DM

thanks to everyone for providing feedback!! ❤️ ❤️
i'm going to lock the thread 🔒

[storm stag]

unlocking! hey isn't this covered in 5b?