**unclear rules in Shielded Expedition**

[potent bronze]

.

[dry flicker]

Frustrated I am. but if the matter is officially settled, I'll 🤐 on this one 😄
And cheers for the lucky ones who registered on both sides and ranked on both (with some bittersweetness on my end)

[fair patio]

I do think those who land outside of top 100 due to people playing twice should be considered. I feel mostly for them.

No one seems to think of those people.

[dry flicker]

Would it be ok to EXTEND the leaderboard by the number of double ranked people, so that no-one is left behind if they would have ranked otherwise ?

[frail nova]

Great, this is what we were looking forward to

[dry flicker]

we're not talking about 30 people I think. That would add some rewards to the global pool, but given the absence of clarity, that would at least reward everyone who would have ranked

[fair patio]

Indeed!

Would kinda be a two birds one stone solution.

Poor birds.

But yes.

[dry flicker]

Dare I propose that would "take" a portion from the rewards of those who double ranked to reward the outsiders ? Robin hood style ? otherwise it's out of the pocket of the Anoma foundation (just throwing ideas)

[fair patio]

I was kinda thinking bout this as well, but scared to voice this lol.

[potent bronze]

interesting idea, will keep this in mind in convos with Anoma Foundation

[barren pulsar]

many filled forms for both Pilots and Crews, but with same address and got filtered out.

the problem is why team didn't remove ones used two different addresses during registarion

could resolve all debates over this

[pine agate]

So what about the ease with which S5 passed? Some individuals merely made minor adjustments, sometimes even just modifying a single line of code, and they were able to pass the task "Building protocol and cryptography improvements."

Is there any grading criteria? I think the team has it.

[spring glade]

I registered as both a pilot and as crew using the same address. As a result, I can only participate as a pilot. In order to participate both as a pilot and as crew, would I have needed to register from different addresses, despite the fact that multi-accounting is prohibited?

[sudden burrow]

we are too far from that point to ask it again)) a lot of things could be made better if we knew

[potent bronze]

how to draw the line? we have no grading criteria 😞

[fair patio]

I feel ya with this as well, if I look at all my submissions I kinda also done double work for every category. But ah well, I'm okay with it btw.

Bigger concern I find: creating enormous whales. This would not be okay for no one, even the lucky one(s) with alot of coins.

[potent bronze]

wdym?

[fair patio]

I for instance also registered twice but used the same public key. Those got filtered out.

[dry flicker]

Same here

[potent bronze]

i wasn't involved in this part, but my first thought is: how to track Crew vs Pilot points? if it's the same tpknam

[fair patio]

So in a sense there was a 'prevention' for people signing double, but at the same time there wasn't. But yeah, it wasn't clearly set in stone.

[dry flicker]

If you put the same Namada address in both form, you'd get filtered out

[pine agate]

Here's someone who passed the task. "Couldn't have been easier."

[fair patio]

It's oki hehe.

[spring glade]

but it turns out that the same person uses several addresses then, isn’t this a multi-account?

[eager ibex]

In fact, I think we also need to clarify whether one S class can allow two people to score (I hope it's not an inappropriate interjection).

[potent bronze]

wdym?

[eager ibex]

I noticed on the leaderboard that two people submitted the same S class and both were allowed to score.

[pine agate]

What I mean is, did they actually contribute? And the team doesn't have a criteria, in terms of fairness, I myself have changed nearly 20 files to pass that task, but others achieved it too easily.

[potent bronze]

i think it's a reasonable question, one sec

[fair patio]

I find this quite fair though. Those who played double also knew their own intentions of playing twice and if they thought of the other players in the game they'd be aware of potentially taking the place of someone else.

Though it shouldn't be a crazy amount. Also perhaps only do it for those who surpass a certain threshold amount of NAM tokens as it should be fair for them as well? I dunno, also spitballing.

Dunno where I'll land, but I'm also willing to give to the ones outside of top 100 if there's a fierce rejection towards this idea.

But Anoma also had a reserve, I think Gav mentioned a couple times.

[potent bronze]

i can only give my personal opinion on the matter, because i don't think that we have a proposal yet for this matter

my personal opinion is: it depends

1. you have you collaborated --> points
2. you are using someone else's (slightly modified) code that's already been submitted and pretending it's your own --> no-points or ban
3. you clearly operating 20 accounts submitting the same code --> ban

[potent bronze]

ohh i see
yeah, see above ☝️

[hallow echo]

Yeah this PR doesn't contribute at all, and PR is closed. but still pass task 5 improvement 🤣 🤣

[potent bronze]

i'd like to see clusters of accounts operated by one player banned, but we haven't made a proposal yet

[pine agate]

https://github.com/anoma/namada-interface/pull/700

[potent bronze]

we are currently auditing "security vulnerability" and "protocol improvement" subclasses

[austere rose]

I have participated both as a pilot and crew and I have submitted separate S tasks for both categories separate submissions for each S class task. So it’s not fair to disregard S class points, as I have hosted different nodes to ensure unique submissions.

[potent bronze]

there are problems that have arisen because we have no rules and no evaluation criteria

[pine agate]

He closed that PR himself, and still got through.

[austere rose]

I will let the team decide, but wish to make it clear that lot of folks who participated as both, have played it fair. So it’s not fair to remove any points for us.

[potent bronze]

i think this was covered in the announcement, no? pls stay on topic

[pine agate]

That's my question about "fairness," if the team doesn't have criteria, then I hope there's thorough vetting. 😂

[fair patio]

Hey, no one here's talking bout removing points hehe

No worries!

[austere rose]

Sorry was commenting about the comment of reducing S class points for those collaborated for a task 😅

My apologies

[potent bronze]

which comment?

[eager ibex]

Thank you for your reply. However, I believe that even if two people collaborated, only one person should receive the points, because they participated as a team, not individually. If this is allowed, and if our team has five people, does that mean one S class could earn points for all five members

[errant junco]

Does it mean an entity could register twice?

[gaunt gull]

no please dont remove anything, but the fomula should be changed to total ROIDD/ total passed submission each category

[potent bronze]

there were definitely teams that had team members playing individually, and the organizers knew this going into the competition

[potent bronze]

wdym?

[eager ibex]

Yes, they should each submit an S class individually, rather than allowing one S class to award points to two people.

[austere rose]

I misunderstood the comment. My mistake 😅

[icy pond]

You didn't have clear rules stating that one person could fill slots in two categories as both Crew and Pilot, and only realized this after the SE ended. This oversight is so ridiculous, especially given the small number of prize positions (100 in each category). Roughly speaking, 30 people participating as both Pilot and Crew could potentially occupy 60 spots in the top 100 (on both sides), which is absurd, lol 😱

[eager ibex]

I understand it this way: if they complete the task together, they should be considered as one entity, and points should be added to one account for their team. However, if each person submits different S classes, then they are not participating in the contest as a team, and naturally, each should receive their own points.

[potent bronze]

yeah, this seems crazy to me as well

[potent bronze]

i totally get why you're saying this, but how to actually track/evaluate this?

[gaunt gull]

I mean, if 2 players cooperate to complete a task, it should be counted as 1 passed submission
For example: build application (64B ROIDD) has 4 people completing A, B, C, D of which there are 3 submissions (1, 2, 3). the number 3 submission was completed with cooperation between C,D then the scoring formula should be
64B/3 ~ 21.6B , to be more fair, 21.3B should be divided equally by C and D that mean 21.6/2 ~= 10.3B

[rigid crag]

Oh we may have 30 ppl participating in both? Really

[potent bronze]

i thought i was clear in the announcement, but pls let me know if not

[icy pond]

I used a number as an example. I don't know for sure, but the logic is clear

[icy pond]

Will there be any news in the blog, like a summary of the SE results?

[eager ibex]

Emmm, in fact, it's quite easy to implement. We just need to check if one account corresponds to one S class submission. I raised this issue because I saw in the spreadsheet that two people collaborated on the same task and both received points (see rows 3076 and 3077 at https
://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YgLo_nt-s_d-2UkrEPcluUnieeuLJtF6vSKsER9EEZU/edit#gid=1704705698). I am questioning this phenomenon.

[potent bronze]

yeah this makes sense to me, and there are only a few that collaborated (at least openly)

but what about those who weren't open about it? the open collaborators get half, the secret collaborators get full? unless there's a way to compare code between all submissions

cc @eager ibex

like maybe maybe we can identify a cluster or two of accounts all submitting the same thing

[eager ibex]

I think it's fair for two people to collaborate on two tasks, and both receive points for their individual submissions. However, it's unfair for two people to collaborate on a single task and both receive points for that one task.

[potent bronze]

i agree, but the game rules, criteria, and tracking weren't set up to account for this

so it's kind of like unscrambling an egg

[eager ibex]

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. In fact, whether they collaborate or not isn't that important. However, it's a bit against common sense for two people to complete one task and both receive points.

[potent bronze]

yes

[potent bronze]

idk how registration worked if registering as an entity

but like, a team of 5 people could each play individually as whatever

[potent bronze]

agreed

but what if two people collaborate, and then they fork and modify, then each submits one of them

[eager ibex]

Indeed, this is difficult to discern, much like how an explore can be slightly modified and then submitted.

[fringe pawn]

Thanks for addressing this. I want to just be clear that we asked several times (the messages are in general chat) and were told it was no problem to register for both crew and pilot. (before competition)

[eager ibex]

However, I think it seems even more inappropriate to submit the exact same task without any modifications.

[potent bronze]

yeah, hence #1 in the announcement

[dry heart]

if we do not have the rule from the beginning, let's keep it running like it. I don't think it's appropriate to change the rules at this time

[potent bronze]

how so? if there's no way to stop forking and slightly modding

then we're just restricting people who are open/honest

[potent bronze]

there has to be pretty strong reason to change something

any changes that we propose we have (and will) discuss openly before proposing to Anoma Foundation

@gaunt gull thoughts?

[eager ibex]

Indeed, but it seems there is no perfect solution. If this is allowed, it would be greatly unfair to those of us who complete all the work alone.

[potent bronze]

it's kinda like unscrambling an egg

the game setup had some pretty fundamental flaws

we're trying to do what we can to correct for this. we've got a few ideas in mind that we'll propose for discussion soon

[gaunt gull]

it is a big problem, there is no perfect solution.

[eager ibex]

Yes, it's a bit of a trolley problem. But if the team tacitly allows such behavior, which may not conform to the competition rules, there is a high probability that someone who fully adheres to the rules will miss out on the chance to receive a reward.

[oak fox]

Allowing ppl to register both for Pilot and Crews opened the door to a soft Sybil activity, so there's not too many feasible solutions atm, imo

[potent bronze]

our priorities:

1. integrity - we don't want to propose major deviations from the original game, only a last resort
2. contributors - we want to ensure that strong contributors benefit from their participation and stay in our community
3. cosmic justice - there's an intrinsic sense of justice, we kinda all know what's right/wrong, at least at the extremes of the spectrum.. like it's not cool to have a cluster of 20 Sybils on the leaderboard, and it's not cool if someone who makes an amazing app isn't recognized/rewarded

[hallow echo]

Hi sir, @potent bronze , currently there are many applications that only support IBC and do not support any shielded actions at all. Is there any auditing for shielded application. Because in my opinion, the application is called a shielded application when it support at least a shielded action.

[magic gale]

but you distributed test tokens only for 1 role, and if a user registered for 2 roles, he had to participate as a pilot, am i wrong?

[rigid crag]

Participants in both crew and pilot can choose which one they want to get prize after knowing their ranks. I think this is somehow fair.

[ancient crescent]

100% correct.

[vague nimbus]

i think for someone who has actually done double of work, no one wants to choose

[potent bronze]

#📣-se-announcements message pls lmk if not covered here

[potent bronze]

i agree
main thing on my mind is that we can't enforce this, and would mostly rely on self-reporting

[rigid crag]

Actually it's 1.5x work

[errant junco]

As mentioned before that app submission acceptance will be very generous. That means a team of multiple individuals can submit similar apps with similar codes individually. Also the other S Class submissions can be done by sharing infrastructure.

I'm not complaining but it would definitely generate some tensions among the participants if there are competitors that can be considered as sybils.

[fringe pawn]

I think this is a much more serious problem than crew-pilot

[potent bronze]

totally agree

[rare skiff]

I wholeheartedly agree on #2. I hate to beat a dead horse here, but there are soo many almost identical block explorers out there and seems to have been approved according to the googledoc. If I knew a code fork + change color would be approved, I'd do it too 😞

[fringe pawn]

really should be filtered

[stiff adder]

In general in the Shielded Expedition, we have been flying blind for most of the time with the Nebb broken for many weeks. It was decided not to fix the Nebb, then the preliminary results were not published before the end of the SE but it was mentioned that the preliminary results would be published within 2-5 days after the end of the SE, and this also didn't happen. Considering all this serious lack of transparency, the results in the 'WIP - results' excel tab should be immutable apart from some very minor details or changes

[sudden burrow]

you even can't imagine how many sybils are here 😄 and I am not joking

[rare skiff]

I believe that

[sudden burrow]

yeah, it really worth joining the server only today to ask that 😄
p.s. new type of those spammers? 🧐 just curious, no offense

so, you were typing that for 3 minutes? 😄

[stiff adder]

I think collaborations/joint submissions have been done mostly for difficult tasks. So if it is a joint submission of 2 pilots, and points of that task are X per pilot, each pilot here gets X/2 for the joint submission. If they submit two joint submissions in total for the same category then each gets X points ( (X/2) * 2). In the case of a joint submission of 3 pilots, each would get X/3 points. We were planning some joint submissions before, I asked Spork and he confirmed that this is how it works for joint submissions. Otherwise if for example 500 pilots collaborated to find a vulnerability and submit it as a joint submission, it would be like 500 new vulnerabilities approved? Like instead of each getting X/500 points, there would be suddenly like 500 new vulnerabilities approved if each of these pilots would get X points

[fair patio]

https://tenor.com/view/bear-jew-gif-9499241

That's @sudden burrow

[oak fox]

Da Sybil detector

[sudden burrow]

Dani, just ban that crap 😄 anyway it will comeback
p.s. ⚽ time

[potent bronze]

wdym?

[potent bronze]

how?

[trail magnet]

Never heard of roid splitting in that case, if it was the case, we would have done 2 apps, one for staking shielded coins and one for swapping, we did only swapping because we were told it was ok, without any warning from spork.. we have tripled check it before submitting

[potent bronze]

point made, but no debating from here pls

[stiff adder]

@potent bronze going to reply here to you and lankou: We were planning a joint submission also and asked Spork about this, if it was possible only joint submission of 2 or 3 pilots could also be possible. He confirmed 3 was possible too, and explained in this case the points are just divided by 3. Of course in joint submissions the points are divided, otherwise what is the point of doing a joint submission? Like someone could do a task, then invite 10 other pilots and say 'joint submission' and points for 1 task are multiplied by x11? Right because this one task would give X ROIDS in total, so if 2 or 3 pilots or 10 pilots are sharing this X ROIDS for a joint task they each get X/2 or X/3 or X/10. It has to be like this, otherwise if each would get X ROIDS then X*11 means that one single task would give the same ROIDs as 11 tasks by labelling it as 'joint submission', obviously it cannot be like this and Spork clearly explained this to us weeks ago when we asked. Maybe @trail magnet if you never heard about this you could have verified and asked Spork as well like we did

[stiff adder]

That it has been very opaque for weeks in terms of the ROIDs from A/B/C tasks in general given the Nebb was broken. Only the S class tasks were reviewed frequently and updated on the excel. So at least this shouldn't be modified a lot, because if already ROIDs from A/B/C categories are so opaque and now also after the end of the SE many changes will be done in the excel for S class tasks... In terms of transparency/integrity wouldn't be the best and any changes should be clearly explained and described I think

[trail magnet]

Regarding the crew + pilot,at the very beginning I registered for both with the same nam address, but anoma said then they registered me as a pilot, so I understood we cannot play pilot and crew, BUT if I had put 2 differents addresses I would had been subscribed for both, it think it was understandable from their communication in an email they send , I can look for it. It was not clear, but, as I look back to it, it was written: 2 diff addresses, crew.and pilot is ok, @potent bronze tell me if you want me to find the email

[potent bronze]

got it
we're auditing two categories, "security vulnerabilities" and "protocol improvements"

like security vulnerabilities need to be just that, not a ux bug. the problem is that there are lots of contributions that are valuable, like bug bounty valuable, but clearly don't qualify in these two categories

and probably nobody will qualify for protocol improvements, bc that's a pretty insanely hard bar to clear if you see the examples in the blog post pic

[potent bronze]

no need to address Lankou, pls don't suggest that he should have done things, it's not what this thread is for

[potent bronze]

not sure i follow
are you saying that an email went out that stated one could play both roles?

if so, i can check it myself

[potent bronze]

also if we can identify and collect solid evidence, we will try to recommend removing a couple of the most scaled Sybil clusters

[stiff adder]

Thanks for the transparency Gavin, just curious why the auditing is being done now vs from the start of the SE? Like who or why approved previously 'security vulnerabilities' and 'protocol improvements' tasks? And why it was decided to 'raise the bar' in these two categories after the end of the SE rather than at the beginning just after the first few approved tasks in these two categories?

[clear scarab]

Since we decided to audit all previously accepted tasks - funding security and improving the protocol. Do another audit of the "shielded application", since there are also a lot of questions about this category and look only at those submissions where "shielded action" is implemented

[potent bronze]

long story short, the evaluators were too lax without criteria

we assumed an escalating set of responsibilities part way through the contest with no criteria for evaluations and without the person who made the game

[potent bronze]

this is a reviewed, considered, and settled matter #📣-se-announcements message

[potent bronze]

it's not so much "raise the bar," but to be as true to the category as possible

security vulnerability doesn't have much of a fuzzy line

and the protocol improvements examples seem pretty clear what the intention was

another thing is that there are valuable contributions, like bug reports that deserve a bounty (but not security vulnerability ROID points) and docs contributions for a bounty (but not core protocol improvements ROID points)

i think evaluators wanted to recognize these contributions and so they fit them into these categories, but upon review it would mess with the integrity of the contest to leave them like this (as flawed as the contest is)

[woven gull]

There are many accepted works that essentially have no shielded action. Example: the application can only send assets from a transparent address to shielded. If this is accepted, does that mean I can ask spork to move my faucet from the Bulding namada ecosystem category to the Building Shielded Applications category? In my faucet you can also request tokens for znam... (shielded) address

[errant junco]

Tbh, I didn't believe there were more than 10k participants.

[scenic sun]

No competition can achieve absolute fairness. In cases where there's disagreement among community members, I believe it's sufficient to take care of most participants. I hope that the reward scope can be expanded.

If there are members who can rank both as a pilot and as a crew member, I think this is unfair to the community members who didn't succeed, as it takes up our ranking spots.

[dry heart]

It's really bad when a competition has no criteria, luckily we still have time to correct it. Although it cannot please everyone, at least it is reasonable and anyone who does not participate in the competition will see it as transparent, reasonable and logical.

[prisma meteor]

Keep crying =]]

[cyan tusk]

At least you do 🙏😍 ! Appreciate it so much bro, im out of top 100 last day 🥲

[smoky sapphire]

Why we're discussing this problem. Does anyone see a Pilot can be a Crew or a Crew operate the airship ? this is why we distinguish the role of Pilot and Crew.

[frail nova]

It is useful to many people

Because most of them work individually and do not have a team. If that had been allowed from the start, the outcome would have been very different.

[fringe pawn]

we are discussing this problem because people keep bringing it up..

[rigid crag]

yes it's a great opportunity that you can choose between crew or pilot reward. and fairest solution as @eager ibex said. people with rank 25 to 70 in crew category could have possibly got doubled rewards if they participated in pilot category imo. people who participated in both now can use this opportunity and get double rewards.

[scenic sun]

If one can compete simultaneously as a pilot and a crew member, why are there two separate leaderboards for competition? I don't understand this practice. I noted yesterday's announcement explanation, but I reserve my opinion.

[fringe pawn]

I'm not here to discuss anything but I want to make the point that again, we asked before competition in the open channels and were told by moderation is was completely fine to register for both classes. I also don't think it would be fair at all to restrict rewards to one class only, ex post (after competition ended) when we have put in double work (and run double infra etc). However, I understand the decision lies with team and I'm cool with that. I do not like however, that the same arguments for changing the rules keep being reiterated again and again when it's already been stated a decision is pending, but that's just my opinion. Not here to discuss, will try and forget about this whole thing as honestly it makes me depressed regarding the nature of our community spirit.

[eager ibex]

Okay, in fact, I haven't seen any chat logs or documents indicating that this is allowed. If it really is allowed, I think you could submit some chat logs or other proof to make your point more persuasive.

[eager ibex]

Maybe everyone's education is different. I simply believe that before a proposal is decided, anyone can express their opinions. Of course, you can choose not to read my views; that's also a form of freedom of speech. You are welcome to express your own opinions to refute mine, instead of just accusing us of discussing this issue.

[fringe pawn]

I'm not engaging. Will find the documentation as requested

here is some of the documentation requested, I'm sure there is more: (I have no interest in debating, but since it's been asked for documentation here is some of it)
#👋-general-chat message
#🧪︱validator-testnet-support message
#👋-general-chat message

[narrow fable]

@potent bronze , I know you, Spork, and the entire team have been dedicated to finding the best way to fairly reward everyone involved. However, I notice that we're still debating the same issues repeatedly, which leads to constant discussions.

It's disheartening to see that recent decisions may benefit some at the expense of others, especially when previously approved activities are now being questioned. If the team is considering tightening the rules for activities S5 and S6, why not apply the same rigor to all phase? After all, we know that the mainnet goes through five phases, so we still have time for a new analysis, considering that all activities have already been submitted. It's crucial to ensure that all activities are treated with equality and transparency, regardless of any personal interests that may interfere with the fairness of the process.

[rare skiff]

that seems pretty clear cut

[gaunt gull]

Everything related to SE needs to be finished before the mainnet starts because from stage 1 it is necessary to use NAM to operate the validator and vote the governance. Subsequent stages are upgraded through governance

[narrow fable]

I see, you're absolutely correct. I hope the team can make their decisions to analyze and conclude all the activities during this interim period.

[crisp tree]

They should do fast please

[gaunt gull]

yep

[eager ibex]

As one of the community members who raised questions yesterday, I would like to share my views again, hoping not to disturb everyone:

1.Regarding the situation where two people submit the same task for an S class, I believe this should not be allowed. In fact, each task submission is a proof of work, so when two people complete the same work, each should only receive half the points due for that category (or they could choose to allocate all the points to one person). If multiple people collaborate and submit multiple times, and receive the same score as a single submission by a group, this is extremely unfair to those who only submit once (especially for those S classes that are beautifully and complexly done by teams but submitted only once under the team's name). I strongly request that the official reopen the form to allow collaborators to submit again. I hope the officials can achieve the greatest fairness.

2.Regarding being registered both as a crew and as a pilot, I believe the official blog has already made it clear that this is not allowed (see https ://namada.net/blog/the-namada-shielded-expedition "you can join as a pilot (validator), or as a crew member (user)", the use of 'or' indicates that one cannot participate as both. If it were possible to join as both, it would probably be stated as "you can join as a pilot (validator), or as a crew member (user) or both"). In fact, I think this resembles a Sybil-like behavior (imagine if one person controls two accounts, one as a pilot and one as a crew, isn't that a form of Sybil?). Therefore, I think the fairest approach is to allow them to choose one identity to receive the reward. Indeed, such users already have a tremendous advantage as they can switch identities after the competition starts to achieve the best outcome. As someone who only registered as a crew member, I found the pilot role more interesting after the competition began but obviously, I could not switch, while those who registered both can easily do so. As for pretoro's claim of putting in double the effort by running two instances of RPC, doesn't a Sybil also put in double or more effort? Ultimately, this is a milder form of Sybil behavior (of course, this is just my personal opinion, and pretoro might disagree).

3.Regarding the issue of incorrect S class category submissions, I think the officials still need to be cautious in making corrections. I am not very familiar with whether IBC is a Shielded action or not, so I will not comment on that. However, I naively believe that a faucet cannot be categorized as a Shielded Application. If the officials think it is also a Shielded Application, then I earnestly request that everyone be allowed to change their S class submission category again. I noticed that several faucets in the table have been categorized under Building Namada Ecosystem Integrations and Tooling, but if they were categorized under Building Shielded Applications, the scores would increase significantly (because there are very few submissions under Building Shielded Applications, so the scores are higher). My estimate is that this could easily place one in the top fifty of the crew, and I think pilots would be similar.

[austere rose]

I am reiterating that the official blog and the team has confirmed that one can compete both as pilot and crew. Changing rules at the end of expedition after SE is over is not fair to anyone, who submitted tasks fairly in both category. And hence both submissions should be allowed.

[eager ibex]

In fact, it would be better if you could post the official document when you restate your point.

[austere rose]

I have personally spent hours hunting for bugs and completing S class tasks in both categories, and I am really tired defending that once the rules were clear it’s confirmed it shouldn’t be changed

I don’t know how else to put it.

[eager ibex]

Please find the evidence; at least I have posted my arguments.

[austere rose]

Gavin has confirmed in the announcement that team has confirmed multiple times officially in discord. I don’t think we need more evidence for it

We were pursuing this according to this confirmation and we also didn’t hide our identity, and it was public knowledge that folks were competing in both

[eager ibex]

Gavin mentioned yesterday that this is a proposal and still needs to be confirmed by the official team. I don't know why some people always intentionally misinterpret Gavin's words.

[austere rose]

The official announcement made by Gavin just exactly states that he checked with team and confirmed it’s allowed. I dunno how else to put it.

@fringe pawn has also shown evidences in chat where team confirmd multiple times that it is allowed

[eager ibex]

@eager ibex fyi #📣-se-announcements message

i also have not found the issue sufficiently clarified, regarding one playing as both Pilot and Crew. also i think it's pretty lame to find this out after registration ends. but my understanding is that one player can play as a Pilot while also playing as a Crew Member. we have also put it here to make extra sure with the Anoma Foundation: https://hackmd.io/@gaving/SkfYu80a6

[eager ibex]

However, isn't Gavin's point that we still need to confirm with the team? Please do not deliberately distort the truth.

[austere rose]

Please read later, when he confirms after conversation with a team than one can play as both pilot and crew. The full announcement

[austere rose]

Distort the truth?

[eager ibex]

" but continued unproductive, heated/frustrated/exasperated back-and-forths between one another--not cool 😎
this is the organizing team's responsibility (and fault), don't direct your frustration at each other"I think you can take a good look at this sentence.

[austere rose]

You keep bringing this a Sybil behavior so I am defending my position that it’s incorrect to term this as Sybil

Independent Bug submissions, protocol improvements and protocols building has definitely made the protocol stronger. So it was helped the SE with fair submissions. This needs to be taken into consideration.

[frail nova]

Agree in your opinion

[eager ibex]

i haven't found anything published that says you cannot--thus, it's safe to assume you can play both positions. this is also my understanding from a spoken conversation with Awa. unfortunately i've found nothing that makes it clear that you can play both positions, so i hesitated to take a position with nothing to point to, and decided to defer to the Anoma Foundation to respond to this

[eager ibex]

You can take a look at this sentence; it does not indicate that it is allowed.

[austere rose]

It think it makes it clear. But anyway, it’s going in circles. I am not sure how else to put it. Anyway, I will let the team decide

[potent bronze]

after speaking with Spork, this is my understanding

context
while we see no specific reference to "shielded actions" in the "building shielded applications" subclass in the blog post https://namada.net/blog/namada-shielded-expedition-wanted-asteroids-roids-point-system-and-rankings, it's probably reasonable to draw this conclusion from the examples provided.

there appeared to be no path for participants to create an application with shielded actions until the SDK was complete. this wasn't apparent until after participants had invested considerable time and effort and finally hit a wall. so the people developing their apps tried working around this limitation in various ways, which led to Spork establishing criteria (since we had no criteria provided to us at the outset)

Spork's criteria
the threshold for being considered a "shielded application" is that it either sends an asset over IBC to a znam address, or vice versa. then to qualify, it's case by case eg. work added to improve the UI, such as a web app or GUI or wallet features like key management

your question
does that mean I can ask spork to move my faucet from the Bulding namada ecosystem category to the Building Shielded Applications category? feel free to demo and share your code with Spork for consideration

[potent bronze]

@hallow echo reasonable concern, pls see above ☝️

[potent bronze]

not cool 🧌

[potent bronze]

i can handle questioning whether or not we're on topic, thanks

[gaunt gull]

actually we can fix the sdk to make shielded action work

[potent bronze]

that's not building a shielded application anymore, is it? that's fixing the Namada SDK

[potent bronze]

okay but how to do this?

[potent bronze]

agreed, i also don't know why

[gaunt gull]

the Namada SDK working fine, but the extension is not correctly integrated with it

we still can use the sdk via CLI

[potent bronze]

i think that this was addressed in the announcement, but pls address me about this, not Pretoro

[potent bronze]

the other categories criteria already had a review, these are the final two previous unreviewed categories #1230547749603377273 message

we're not "raising the bar" #1230547749603377273 message

[pine agate]

So if we fix the SDK and it functions correctly according to the initial mission criteria, then what?

The truth is we've already done it, and it's been operational, as that was Namada's requirement from the outset.

But in the final week, the requirements changed; the team lowered the mission criteria.

And if building an app without the need for the SDK is straightforward, then it would have been easier to accomplish, but prior to that, we spent over a month completing it.

[potent bronze]

changed from what?

were the requirements detailed somewhere before Spork provided clarification?

[dry heart]

he dont know we do not have the criteria

[potent bronze]

i think that this deserves recognition
the Shielded Expedition isn't designed to recognize the quality of the contribution, just yes/no with no defined threshold

people spent months working on amazing apps that got a ✅ alongside barebones apps that work

[potent bronze]

same here

[willow ivy]

Hi, Gavin!
Why did you decide to re-evaluate approval criteria only after SE has ended? Changing it while SE was ongoing and giving people time to make new submissions is one thing.
But doing it when SE is over with no chance for participants to make new submissions in place of what was rejected is pretty unfair imo

[potent bronze]

we thought about this

regarding security vulnerability submissions, do you think that the outcome would be different?

regarding protocol improvements, do you think that the outcome would be different? (see examples in screenshot)

[pine agate]

Okay! well done. Thank you

Thanks, @potent bronze , if you put it that way. Because we only researched and executed according to the project's documentation on the mission concept. If we had known beforehand that we could do it differently, we wouldn't have spent so much time on it.

Have a great weekend! everyone 💪

[potent bronze]

💯
you should be recognized for this, even if the Shielded Expedition does not

[narrow fable]

Thank you for getting back to me. I understand the decision, although I don't fully agree, as I believe everyone worked with the information available at the time. If the information changes, strategies change as well. In my case, if we had known during the testnet phase that there would be new conditions to consider, we would have focused on finding something more complex that fit the new requirements. Unfortunately, that's no longer possible since the testnet has already been finalized. I hope the team can understand my point of view.

[scenic sun]

Every community member participating in the competition deserves recognition, but the rewards are only for the top 100. Everyone hopes their work can gain more ROID, which is why there are so many disputes within the community.

[potent bronze]

i totally understand
we did consider this. this is bad, but it's the "less bad" way, we think

[willow ivy]

Well, speaking for my team here, but outcome would 100% be different. If we had our Building protocol improvement submission rejected after initial approval, we'd focus on making a new submission, according to new guidelines. But instead we moved to other things

RPC endpoints is a good example. There was an announcement before SE ended about new approval criteria. And it gave time for participants to re-submit

[potent bronze]

we want to propose some kind of remedials outside of the game to help offset the problems caused by fundamental flaws in the contest

[potent bronze]

agreed
these two categories should have been reviewed sooner. we depriotized them because they didn't require the chain to be running, and focused on finishing the evaluations that required the chain

[hallow echo]

I don't believe that an application that does not support any shielded action should be called a shielded application 🤣

[potent bronze]

understandable! but yeah, i've written our reasoning

[potent bronze]

the submissions accepted for "protocol improvements" were too varied and inconsistent

and we didn't realize this until the contest ended, after the on-chain submissions had been completed

[willow ivy]

Probably
But why change this after SE is over?

[sudden burrow]

to be honest, without offence to anyone, all "you didn't give us time" is the same as "let's allow ppl to submit till the mainnet", it will give some smart ppl the time to learn more and write smth from scratch

unfortunately, in any business there are deadlines, and if you missed them just because you understood the requirements wrongly it is only your fault that you didn't ask before to clarify them

and someone did it better, so an end customer selects your opponent 🤓

[potent bronze]

why not leave a set of submissions accepted that has no criteria for being accepted?

i'm trying to think about how to articulate this

[willow ivy]

It's not about deadlines. We followed deadline - which is an ending of SE.
It's like when you given a task and a deadline and you complete it. But right after you're told that initial task description is in fact wrong and you did a wrong thing.

Kinda different concepts, isn't it?

[potent bronze]

is this helpful?

this thread is for clarification on our decisions

[sudden burrow]

it is like you have a very uncertain customer 😄 and once you did smth he decided he wants a different thing, and you can't do anything, this is his right

just a suspicion from my side, once we all got a list of tasks almost no one clarified with the team what exactly should be done, most people just did something based on their understanding

for sure, if it was clarified and approved, then better to don't change related stuff

[narrow fable]

The team is considering a decision that may benefit some members, but I feel that this may not be the best decision for the group as a whole. I request that you consider the full impact of the decision on all involved, as I feel that some will be disadvantaged or unjustly treated.

Therefore, I believe the team should reflect more deeply on the potential effects of this decision and consider alternatives that promote equity.

[sudden burrow]

I feel all of us are a big pain in the 🍑 of the team 😄 all the time someone is not happy, and it is hard to make everyone happy
plz excuse me for the comparison 🤪

[crisp tree]

Please wrap it up my people. these disagreements wouldn't end even in two years. So please publish result already or update C and A class

[potent bronze]

yeah like unscrambling an egg

[potent bronze]

i think the last reasonable question that's not been satisfactorily answered is this one

[gaunt gull]

Hello Gavin, can we end the debate today? I just want to see the final result in next three days. We have a lot of works for mainnet stages. Please focus on the timeline. Too many people think we are not live 😦

[fringe pawn]

agree with your sentiment, but there is an issue around post-gen uptime that ideally needs to be resolved..

[potent bronze]

yeah, i'm saying that there's really only one outstanding question, imo

it still needs to be answered

[fringe pawn]

what's the question, sorry? I'm getting lost in trying to follow all this

[potent bronze]

@willow ivy i need to get back to on this, i have a call

[willow ivy]

If this decision is set in stone, then no answer is needed. I understand the logic behind it
It's more about the game. Changing rules mid-game is bad
Changing rules after game is over is terrible

[potent bronze]

unanswered Q: #1230547749603377273 message

[potent bronze]

agreed

[potent bronze]

i mean we still need to be accountable for decisions, tho

[scenic sun]

The rules before SE cannot fully address some current issues, so the team needs to improve some rules now.

The team can't satisfy everyone, but they can choose to satisfy the majority.😀

[fair patio]

I wasn't following along, but we're not changing already submitted and approved tasks right? Seems like we're having concerns about this now?

We already kinda discussed this many times during the competition and it was a big no-no then. Is it becoming a maybe-maybe/yes-yes now post-competition?
If so, I have to stand behind @willow ivy for this one. Back then we had the time to up the requirements for tasks, but now it leaves no room for anyone to adapt anymore.

For instance:

• Some of us may have solved something fitting a category like 'protocol improvements', but didn't bother submitting it as an S-Class for already being eligible due to a previously submitted one.
• Those who already had an approval stopped looking all too intensely for more fitting that category.
• Even the submissions that were very clear to not fit the category can't be changed around now imo. Especially those who have been approved way back.

[fringe pawn]

maybe I shouldn't say more and I won't say much, but it's highly demotivating to be in a discussion where factual items posted (see above) that have been asked for by other participants, are pretty much ignored and the same assertions that have been put forward for days just keep being put forward (in all different channels and formats unrestricted). I hope my submissions of factual evidence above don't get lost in the stream, and hope anyone interested in the issue will take their time to go through it. (I also feel like there's a big portion of opportunism at play here and that really is dismaying)

[willow ivy]

Looks like it's already decided and all submissions for 2 classes will be re-evaluated and most of them rejected

[fair patio]

Ah, hmm, alright.

It's in the end in the hands of the team ofcourse.

[willow ivy]

Team is only considering now how to present it to the community. At least from my understanding

[narrow fable]

This is exactly my thought.

[sudden burrow]

this is my main point, all further discussions just make everything harder...

[fair patio]

Though I do think it's important for people to express this.

Since I remember having heard many times that we can't just undo an already approved task.

[fringe pawn]

to be fair I don't think that's necessarily operational with the amount of spam/copy submits that have already been highlighted (no strong feelings about this part of the discussion btw)

[austere rose]

Well said yes, time to wrap up.

[fair patio]

Ah yes, I'll await the announcements we'll eventually get hehe

[gaunt gull]

hope so

[fair patio]

Can we see this live rejection 😂, I wanna see the bullets flying at us

[stiff adder]

Just curious Gavin about your comment 'we're auditing two categories, "security vulnerabilities" and "protocol improvements"', I understand that these two categories were being evaluated only by Heliax since the beginning of the SE. This new auditing mentioned is also being done by the same Heliax evaluators or do you mean some external auditing firm/evaluators?

[austere rose]

From the sheet, looks like it’s already ongoing right

[fair patio]

Ah some already got a no instead of previously having yes?

[austere rose]

I mean the WIP column in the sheet, no idea if tasks have changed verdict 🤷‍♂️

I think that was the point of this new entry column right

[narrow fable]

I don't think the analysis has started yet; it's something the team is just proposing to audit.
#1230547749603377273 message

[dry heart]

I don't see Spork saying the last sheet is the final result. It says WIP, so that means the team can correct the bad things that they do not see during SE. Let's team work on it

[left rover]

I think we should change some of "already approved" submissions like copy-paste ones and low threshold ones.
On the one hand, even if the indexer, RPC, and IBC are removed, there are still over a thousand submissions. It is understandable that the team is understaffed and cannot complete them in a timely manner. On the other hand, I believe the team has the authority and should remove those submissions that are obviously plagiarized, cloned or of low quality.

[eager ibex]

It's become difficult to achieve because most S-Class websites have already gone offline.

[woven gull]

It looks like everything has already been decided:

1. 2 categories will be revised ( not fair )
2. Shielded applications are not subject to review if they have already been accepted
3. It was possible to participate as a pilot and as a crew at the same time

Maybe we should end the debate, otherwise this can continue forever 🥲

[crisp tree]

I'm okay with the decision so let's just move on

[potent bronze]

i don't follow

[fair patio]

Hehe thanks for the summary.

[low token]

@potent bronze please look here. I guess this is just the summary. I'm actually tired of these disputes and arguments. It's beginning to linger for too long

[potent bronze]

i agree with everything you've written, and we considered each of these before deciding to review and audit. we know that it's bad to do this, but i think we'll do it anyway, because the alternative is worse

the alternative: what are the implications of leaving the "protocol improvements" category as a catch-all bucket?

with the current evaluation, there's no defining characteristic, other than maybe "it seems to be helpful and doesn't fit in another category." i think this effectively makes the "protocol improvements" category unbounded, which calls into question all kinds of other submissions that should potentially qualify, and no way to qualify them

cc @willow ivy

[fair patio]

Got it! Thanks for clarifying. I do understand this perspective yes.

Let's hope it will not be the exact opposite for lvl of strictness for the category now then haha. The scale may tip over ⚖ 😂.

[potent bronze]

☝️ this is also in response to the (reasonable) question, "but why change this after the SE is over?"
#1230547749603377273 message

[potent bronze]

agreed, we'll publish criteria

also i will review what's been written here and provide a summary for comment before announcing it

[fair patio]

I do still favor to rectify these things outside of SE (like adding it to the potential plan to reward those who did outstanding things).

[potent bronze]

💯

yes, there's what we can do within the game, and what we can do outside of the game (that hopefully helps on the "prioritizing contributors" and also the "cosmic justice" front)
#1230547749603377273 message

[gaunt gull]

Great, that's what I was waiting for 👀

[fair patio]

(And even deducting NAM for those who didn't exactly get the category right but had an approval already).

That would also create a buffer to give to those unfortunate ones who land just outside of top 100.

But yes! Will await teams decision :)!

I will go go go off now!

Goood luck!

[fair patio]

(Yeah I just realized we're only thinking in terms of rewarding, while we could also think penalty wise.)

[fringe pawn]

I didn't understand that one at all. But I think changing the NAM alloc is a bad/impossible idea.

if I understand you correctly

[fair patio]

No, like:

What if we have someone who has the two tasks done that are being reviewed again. Person already has an approval for two months.

Now it appears one of his tasks didn't necessarily fit due to the criteria.

Give this person a NAM penalty instead of completely refusing his/her submission.

And I'm here talking bout a somewhat okay submission, not e.g. a single line fix.

@fringe pawn

Now we 1. don't punish super harsh/unfairly at the end of SE. 2. The person somewhat does pay the price. 3. We create a buffer to give to others.

[fringe pawn]

you mean roid and not nam then I assume?

[fair patio]

@potent bronze Sorry for tagging Gav, but this might be an interesting consideration. Starting at the message I reply to.

[fair patio]

No I actually mean NAM.

Perhaps ROIDs is possible as well, but then we get a kind of 'weighted' task approval approach.

[fringe pawn]

I don't think that's possible calculation-wise. It will trickle down and mess with all placings. If you mean roid it's doable though I lean towards it being a bad idea. but doing it with NAM I don't see how that would work at all

[fair patio]

Why not, you eventually have to send nam to addresses. Just deducting NAM is perhaps even easier than ROIDs.

[fringe pawn]

because it doesn't make any sense if they get a reduction to let them keep their position in rank

[fair patio]

I'm not talking bout placement btw. Eventually placement doesn't matter.

[fringe pawn]

rank is first, rank is what should be adjusted, NAM follows rank

if you want to impose penalties, freezing rank doesn't make any sense imo

ultimately I think such a scheme would be too complicated anyways, but it definitely needs to be roid-based if done

anyways I'm off for the weekend in a sec, but just wanted to get this in there. I think if you do some example-calculations, you will see how it becomes tricky..

[fair patio]

I bet it's far simpler and less hard of a punishment. Though I understand that this would make it less of an opportunity for those who didn't get these tasks.

[fringe pawn]

it would exactly be less of a punishment. to the point where it may be better to not change it at all. (and also would be a punishment to those ranking lower...)

but anyways I'm not strongly in favor of or opposed to the revision scheme , but I do feel strongly we should be careful making too complicated amendments or changing the entire structure of scoring, which is what this is suggesting I think

[fair patio]

This is exactly the same as the crew pilot debate btw.

You went with what you thought to be okay up till now right? That's the same for those who got something approved.

This is the exact same sensation we are now getting as an experience. It's funny that you're the one so against this now.

[fringe pawn]

btw Zen, I want you to have all roid in the world, I think your apps are absolutely stellar, so this is not about your contributions

[fair patio]

But okay, let's stop this. Cause I sense we have emotions boiling up lol.

We're big pals 😂.

[fringe pawn]

I don't agree it's the same scenario at all. We can sort it out in dm if you will. I have no ill feelings towards you here (nor anywhere else), was just commenting on what I thought of the idea (also note I said I'm not strongly in favor or opposed to ...)

[crisp tree]

Please let's move with the result we have . If at the end I don't receive NAM or enough nam I'll beg @fringe pawn @gaunt gull or @fair patio to give me small NAM

[fringe pawn]

you can beg the rest, they will finish much ahead of me 🙂

[fair patio]

If I sent something in and I got an approval, my reality shifts towards one where I'm not obligated to send in this task anymore. Mine shifted even towards: I'm not going to spam or bug examinators with extra submissions I already got an approval for.

So in a sense, now hearing that there's a change for a rejection is like hearing: hey we said it was okay to play as pilot and crew, but meh now we are going to reconsider. It's similar in the sense of: you were given the idea that you are moving in alignment with the team, but now appears not so much.

Sorry had to clarify my comparison with the other "prob/issue"

[fringe pawn]

I'm available in dms if you want to discuss further

[fair patio]

Haha yes, just a sec. Need to read.

[fair patio]

Yes apologies, we're talking a bit alongside one another, seeing it

[rapid sparrow]

Aware of all the discussion above,
But still most of the players have stop to submit / find solution as in (hard to find such potential solution) specially on building protocol and security vulnerability as it has been accepted (yes) .

But still align to what decision to be made further if it's to be made fair and on a good justice for everyone.

In my opinion this debate has been going on and it's not gonna end well if a proper direction is not made soon.

It's better to focus on the interim timelines, and get ready for several phase of mainnet.

I want to see the results and final settlement by the end of April at least!

Instead of taking issue and unclear rules bits by bits, it's better to take them as whole as one agenda and a proper direction to be taken as soon as possible.

It's like going on an on. Everytime I come here on chats it's all about unclear rules and regulations.

So clearly my sincere request to team and foundation handling the situation to make it fair and clean the messed up with fair justice and as soon as possible. We can't be debating all over this, and clearly it's not our decision that needs to taken beforehand, now it's clearly Going out of control.

When there's one head/ solution that can be addressed by who has control over this.

Thank you.

[fringe pawn]

100% agree with jojoraky. Off for weekend now.

[rapid sparrow]

Take care man! Same here. Have a good weekend

[fringe pawn]

you too!

[fair patio]

A good weekend to the both of you :)! ❤️

[potent bronze]

@here this is the criteria we intend to use for "Building protocol and cryptography improvements"
yes, it's bad to do this retroactively after end of competition, but otherwise pls let me know if there's anything particularly flawed

For a submission to be considered as "Building protocol and cryptography improvements," it should a) address something in the Namada specs (ie. core protocol), and to qualify b) it must be a reasonably useful improvement/solution that's been demonstrated practically or mathematically. The submission should be specific to Namada and a new, useful solution, not something already described somewhere like GitHub.

Protocol performance improvements, for example, should be more than just descriptive. They should either

• mathematically prove a theoretical performance enhancement
• demonstrate and measure an implemented performance enhancement

For "Finding security vulnerabilities" submissions to be considered, they must actually be reports of security vulnerabilities.

Security vulnerabilities specifically compromise the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the system and its data (not a specific user), potentially leading to unauthorized access, data theft, or service disruption. They pose direct risks to the security posture of the system.

[supple prawn]

Hello Gavin,
Why don't you do this for shielded apps as well?

[potent bronze]

we have #1230547749603377273 message

see convo beginning here: #1230547749603377273 message

especially this #1230547749603377273 message

[supple prawn]

The "Building protocol" category is also not explained in detail in the blog post, which means that any contribution can be considered in this category. The message you just shared consists of comments to increase the acceptance threshold and is completely not in the blog post

If there are people in this category who have made real cryptographic improvements, I fully support them getting the recognition they deserve. But if you can do this kind of retrospective re-evaluation for this category, you should be able to do it for the category of building shielded apps

[stiff adder]

Hey @supple prawn there have been ongoing discussions for a long time and the consensus is to respect what it has been decided by the team evaluating rather than continue repeating and insisting about topics extensively discussed before and already decided

[spring glade]

Don’t you think that by such actions you devalue the work of the participants?
Canceling approved tasks is a bad idea

[fair patio]

It should never have said: "Examples" in the column next to the subclass names. This is probably where most confusion was to what is and isn't a decent entry.

Or a separate column describing the categories in detail.

"Building protocol improvements" and "Building cryptography improvements"

It's ambiguous.

[potent bronze]

i find it interesting, but yeah, a completely undefined category is like a bucket without walls--it just ain't gonna hold any water 🪣 💧

[dry flicker]

There is nonetheless an unintended consequence of this :
Basically you are stripping a lot of ROIDs from most of the players who were the most hard at work and try to climb the ladder as best they could.
By doing that, it over weighs another bugged task : everything related to uptime.
On the current state, most shield-100 will get a lot of points from these tasks that other pilots couldn't achieve because of unjail and such.
By removing those S class, you're removing one of the few edges we had to compete with an initially skewed leaderboard

[potent bronze]

i get what you're saying, and we're close to finishing this
but it really affects real people, so we need to be accountable

[dry flicker]

(sorry for being so blunt, long day, lost of frustrations)

[potent bronze]

nothing is explained in detail in the blog post

i've written our reasoning for each change that we've made, and what you've written hasn't taken that reasoning into account

[potent bronze]

feel free to review and address our reasoning

[potent bronze]

yeah this is one of the fundamental flaws in the game. S Class missions needed clear criteria at the outset

[fair patio]

Why isn't there like a meet in the middle approach? Since it's not entirely our fault that we're here now.

Many of us would've adapted to the criteria if we knew of this mid competition. I personally would've shifted my focus for instance more on a github issue I made about optimizing MASP that wasn't good enough for lacking a bit more specific elaboration.

[narrow fable]

Thank you for the clarification. I acknowledge it has been a long journey, and while I may not fully agree with the decision, I understand the team is trying to do what is best for everyone. I appreciate the transparency and wish everyone an excellent weekend.

[supple prawn]

But if you can do this kind of retrospective re-evaluation for this category, you should be able to do it for the category of building shielded apps

[potent bronze]

we def must deal with the uptime and NAAN asymmetry, this is another foundational flaw, imo

there shouldn't have been Pilot missions dependent upon NAAN while also providing a small subset of Pilots with like 10x more NAAN. also therre was a bug that randomly jailed dozens of Pilots for like 4 weeks

[potent bronze]

wdym, meet in the middle?

[dry flicker]

Let's redo the whole SE then 🤣
We throw away everything, rm -rf / and start fresh

[potent bronze]

we did

[supple prawn]

So what are the new criteria for the shielded app category

[dry flicker]

But I want the rewards to be paid in CHEESE, not NAM. that way, we get to eat our own winnings "cheese naan" 🤣

Ok... I'm officially losing it. Help me @fair patio

[potent bronze]

#1230547749603377273 message

[fair patio]

Like for instance take a weighted or penalty approach, not entirely declining those who thought to have finished the task.

• For instance those who match the criteria exactly get more of a weight in the pool, or
• subtract an amount of ROIDs (or NAM) if you were in the category but didn't exactly match the criteria we are given now.

And perhaps only completely remove (still quite unfair imo) for those who truly didn't contribute anything valuable in the category.

[supple prawn]

Everything is the same as it was 2 weeks ago
So you didn't 🤷🏻‍♂️

[potent bronze]

yes, it was done 2 weeks ago

[fair patio]

Here's some cheese 🧀

[supple prawn]

to lower the acceptance threshold, now the acceptance threshold for the other two categories is being raised

[fair patio]

Raised over 9000 😂, we like extremesssss

rm -rf, the person who first dropped that joke made me laugh so hard btw 😂

Ah it was hades, the devil himself

[dry flicker]

It feels like ages ago but we suggested a tiered approach for the ROIDs to account for quality of submissions. That would effectively solve most problems, rewards those who put in the most efforts and rectify the leaderboard somewhat.
But it would be a hard job to sort all submissions again into like 3 tiers for each

[fair patio]

Yeah that's not gonna work out anymore haha, but if we changing these two categories, might as well implement something like that for those

If it's not too much work ofcourse.

I dunno what's eventually best for all parties involved.

Just give all 100 winners equal amount of NAM, fuck it XD!

[stark lodge]

He said that could come outside the game for now let's play with the one we have .

Please I thought everything is already settle. Close this thread do the final review. 22nd is here already I don't want to wait for final result beyond that

[fair patio]

These scenarios are kinda what are the most 'sucky':

• You had more submissions you could have sent, but you didn't cause you didn't wanna spam examinators and you already had an approval.
• You were on your way for a submission that could've been approved (for the current criteria), but worked on something else that did get approved (but doesn't meet the criteria now).

Apologies for talking too much. I'ma calm myself now 😂.

🧀

Random story: there was actually a mouse in my room a week ago. I'm on the second floor. I HAVE NO CLUE HOW. It was a baby mouse, like super tiny.

Actually cute, but his random fast movements were making me panicky af 😂.

[potent bronze]

okay so there are two last things to deal with, regarding S Class evaluation updates

1. shielded app
can a jointly-created app be submitted by two different individuals, with each receiving full points? we think yes

There were two pairs of open collaborators. Each pair was advised by evaluators that they could submit their jointly-created app individually, which we will uphold.

Reasoning:

1. the criteria was so uncertain that participants depended upon evaluators for guidance AND
2. there's a credible reason to think that the two pair of collaborators would have submitted sufficiently different apps otherwise

Counterpoint:
if there's a credible reason to think that people would have done something different otherwise, why doesn't this reasoning apply to the "security vulnerability" and "building protocol.." audits?

Answer: #1230547749603377273 message

2. Sybils
Sybils won't be dealt with in this thread, but if we can collect some compelling evidence on the most egregious of Sybil clusters, we would like to propose banning them

this is dicey territory, because we want to be confident that we don't have a false positive

[green fable]

🤐

[dry flicker]

You forgot about uptime Gavin !

[potent bronze]

y'all too tired to throw rocks at me? 🙈

[potent bronze]

that's not S Class

[fair patio]

Brenttttttttttt

Stoneeeeeeeee

🪨

[dry flicker]

My bad 😅
Ok I'm officially useless at that point then 🤐 time to sleep

Probably better to pick a helmet than hide behind your hands if we throw stones 😅

[potent bronze]

now i have to go through this entire thread and put it in a doc and post it, because people who missed this thread will (quite reasonably) have the same questions/concerns that we have discussed here

[fair patio]

Make sure to include my mouse story

😂...

No, but jokes aside. This feels like you don't have much control on the situation either and probably hurts you as well having to drop these types of news on us :(..

Or Gavin turned demon mode 👿

The tough teacher!

Good luck Gav

[stark lodge]

Don't let me summon sleep on you. I'll make you sleep and wake up when the final result is out

[fair patio]

If you need help, though I may be too biased right now, just tell!

[fair patio]

Going hehe, ciao.

[crisp tree]

Hope you're closing the thread since we've all arrived at a conclusion at least?

[sudden burrow]

3m each? 😄

[austere rose]

How much additional time are we looking at adding to re-review tasks?

Weeks/days or more?

[potent bronze]

yeahh i'm trying to be accepting, but it's hard to not keep thinking "it shouldn't be like this"

hope y'all will stick around after we emergency land this plane

[potent bronze]

Spork has a grace period for the grace period on his list to announce
just to get some final feedback in case there are human errors (not submission appeals)

[fair patio]

Ofcourse man! Will still be here!

[potent bronze]

this is what's left to finalize S Class:

• a bit of s class data to clean up
• ~~ a few evals waiting to be checked by eng team~~
• ~~ likely a bunch of security vulnerability emails backlogged (haven't had access to the emails for the last 10 days, but should get these Monday when person in charge returns)~~
• ideally do what's needed to be confident banning a Sybil cluster or two

i think this is the rest:

• final back-end scoring data (wen??) from eng team (seems like they are finally close)
• check on up-time tracking (is it actually accurate?)
• make proposal for dealing with up-time / NAAN asymmetry dilemma
• make proposal to recognize high quality submissions, bounties, and others
• finalize scores, announce & publish results

anything i'm missing?

edit: proposal to consider implications of expanding winner set

oh yeah and announce/publish summary of this thread

we've got some exciting Namada stuff we wanna focus on, haha
will be good to have the SE finished at last

[eager ibex]

I hope that the reward range can be appropriately expanded (for example, reward the top 150 or the top 300) because the lack of clarity in the rules has led to many people who should have received rewards not getting them. These people did nothing wrong; they also worked hard and should be rewarded, rather than missing out on rewards due to unclear competition rules.

Of course, I think that rewards should also be given to those who only set up IBC and RPC, even though their scores might not be very high, but they are still people who put in effort. Although they may not look excellent in terms of competition scores, they have indeed participated in community activities and have given their all.

[prisma meteor]

finally who's win? 😄

[azure badger]

@potent bronze Will be happy to share feedback on the Shielded Expedition structure and incentive model in one of the validator/community calls. There is opportunity to learn, and will keep it constructive. Look forward to speaking with team and suspect other validators will also have valuable input 🫡

[left rover]

Reward for people who will be affected by rules changing(but not low quality ones)? Agree. Reward for IBC and RPC or Indexer runners? Don't agree. They are not affected by anything. Unless Team would like to change the whole reward schema.

[crisp tree]

Lol you're now asking for too much

[low token]

Lol I feel like they got the initial winner selection of Top 100 from the series. The 100. Check it out.😅. Increasing the winner set would be nice at least I'm sure it will end the whole arguments lol

[eager ibex]

Lol, actually I don’t know what you are trying to say. You can just say it directly, and this is not a demand, but a suggestion.

[crisp tree]

Increasing winner set to top 150 or 300 as you said is enough.

[dry heart]

what? the team gonna change the reward schema?

[crisp tree]

Yet to be proposed

[stiff adder]

Hey @potent bronze thanks for the overview, I think the timeline is missing? Also, people complaint a lot already about changing the rules of the game after the game has ended. And still some rules like uptime and others are still planned to be changed as well? Furthermore, the auditing of vulnerabilities and improvements tasks will have a huge impact in the SE. Basically if just around 5 tasks are approved in these two categories that will be the top 5, ie. the top 5 decided by changing the rules of the game after the game has ended, while we were competing for almost 2.5 months🤦‍♂️ Maybe we should have been informed that the rules of the SE were shielded and only unshielded after the end of the SE

[dry heart]

changing the rule and changing the reward, do we start the competition again mate?

[crisp tree]

It will help in accommodating affected people

[dry heart]

What about those who will be affected after the change? Do we support them?

[crisp tree]

Exceptional contributions will be recognised outside the game

[crisp tree]

@dry heart read here

[frail nova]

I think there will be no changes to the rules, instead expansion rewards will be added

[stiff adder]

There is also another unclear category @potent bronze, the C V2 says 'Start your validator as quickly as possible after the upgrade height', if 'as quickly as possible' means the first block signed (block 237909 https://namada.valopers.com/blocks/237909) then the ROIDs should be given to the validators who signed that first block 237909, this should be clarified as well

[prisma meteor]

When end?

[frail nova]

I don’t know. Lol

[covert garden]

Final competition results should be the week of Apr 22, likely no sooner
#📣-se-announcements message

[covert garden]

👆

[stiff adder]

Yes the final results, but that announcement was assuming/expecting the preliminary results shortly after the end of the SE and the one week grace period, but since the db was too large and there is still no preliminary results this might delay the previously estimated timeline for the final results

[covert garden]

Yes, I agree.
With the db problem it might take some more time...

[dry heart]

We always miss deadlines 😂

[fair patio]

Hey, a question cause I'm not sure if I have a complete image of the current situation:
Will we also take the ambiguity of the category name in account?

Like, "Building protocol and cryptography improvements" could be read as "Building protocol improvements" and "Building cryptography improvements".

For instance is it possible for a PR that has nothing to do with cryptography, but pointed out and fixed a flaw in the workings of a part of the namada protocol to remain accepted? Or are all of these non cryptographic submissions/bugfixes/optimizations, big and small, off the table?

[stiff adder]

I heard from Gavin before here in the chat and in the last call that probably nobody will qualify for "protocol improvements" because 'that's a pretty insanely hard bar to clear if you see the examples in the blog post pic'. Regarding security vulnerabilities, I assume it would be similar because we didn't see any submission of a very serious vulnerability and much better than other previously approved submissions, hence no vulnerability submission will likely be approved, otherwise all vulnerability submissions of a similar level should be approved

[rapid sparrow]

I don't feel like it's competition anymore.

It's just feel like amending and fixing constitution

We need bold and responsible leader. And I'm not saying under your / team leadership there's flaw and not doing any part of it.

But please take bold decision and acceptable reasoning.

Sorry for being like this, but I have to say this and speak up.

Least thing that could be done as of now, is please come up with the finalize decision so we don't have to discuss about this.

No wonder I totally believe on transparency and justice that will be made.

[rare skiff]

Narrator: "Little did we know that the end of SE at epoch 91, wasn't really the end but a start of something far greater."

[rapid sparrow]

Yes something like this! Great move.

Also, there's limit and everything.

I don't understand why we need to expand winner set, just because some people say. I agree the sentiment and interest of general public. But if this keeps on going. I don't see where it will end.

What will they asked next? That's a very big question.

Sybil, duplicate submission, copying someone work that's something of better discussion than, bending new rules just because we want to make it fair,

If it's for the goodness and a valid reason still agree :))

Just don't want to see, complying every new rules that has been unclear since, maybe that's the biggest reason.

[fair patio]

Makes no sense really to make a big deal out of it then, right?
If there's zero, then removing the categories in their entirety would be all the same.

Then I got a feeling this is being done to reward one or two who had exceptional entries, if that's the case. Also possibly to prep for post expedition media publishment and showcase some.

I just feel like, if these are the reasons, we're now placing the punishment in its entirety in our shoes...for something we are not to blame of. I remember asking right at the start of the competition how quality will be taken in account. Kept being said that eligibility is based on whether the person examining it is convinced. Now, instead of taking the bullet together, we're now having to take it.

But ah well, I just hope it's not a case where e.g. chat gpt entries have more chance of being accepted than actual implementations. Just try giving gpt a problem and some data on possible optimizations and it will bless ya with algorithms and so much more 😂.

[gaunt gull]

I think they should find the most suitable submissions for these categories

The worst thing is that we went through a competition that had no specific criteria, now everything feels like starting over again.

[rapid sparrow]

Yeah,

[fair patio]

Yeah, there's just a lot more problems that arise for doing this. Cause these ROIDs we farmed are tied together. For instance someone who had this category as his or her strong point and also took this in account during the game, is getting punished hard.

It's like playing chess and post match we start changing moves made 😂.

Really think awarding these separately outside of SE would keep everyone happy.

Think we are also at such a point where people who land high and see other people's work, would be willing to contribute a portion of their NAM to these people who made extraordinary things.

[gaunt gull]

If from the beginning we have specific criteria for each category, I submit the submission, and if it does not meet the requirements. I still have time to make it better or search in another direction. But now the SE has ended, we can only wait for the results without being able to fix it

[fair patio]

I dread the outcome where we lose key players from the community.

[fair patio]

True man

[stiff adder]

So you think rather than approving zero protocol improvements and vulnerabilities, they will cherry pick one or two in each category and these will be the SE winners? But have you seen any exceptional entries in these 2 categories far better than all the rest? All the submissions are on the excel and I discussed with several people and nobody thinks there is some particularly exceptional submission. Unless there are some we still don't know about and only the evaluating team received the info by email (but I guess it would be on github anyway). It seems unlikely that in 2.5 months no exceptional submission and in the last minute a few of them that we don't know about

[fair patio]

I dunno what they'll consider good enough now. Though it's weird to push the requirements so high for these now, right? There has to be a reason to do this, else there wouldn't be such a strong push to up the bar all of a sudden.

I have to say though. This is all just speculation. It may not be this harsh. The mind tends to make things worse lol.

But if it gets upped big time, then the reason isn't just to filter out the few submissions that really didn't fit the category. That's for sure.

[stiff adder]

Well, if they finally just choose one or two in each of these two categories as you suggest, this is basically choosing the winners of the SE, because all the other categories have many approved submissions and hence the pool of ROIDs is shared amongst many, not just one or two

[fair patio]

Yeah...I just hope we're super wrong and overthinking took the best of me 😅.

[gaunt gull]

🙏

[fair patio]

I really liked your submission for changing the extension around btw! Super dope!

[gaunt gull]

It fixed the SDK issue man, that is the main reason why many people can not build the shielded application

[narrow fable]

Gavin, from the beginning, we've been working with the criteria we had, and I understand that over the course of almost 2.5 months, there have been several adjustments to the defined criteria. However, from the start, everyone without exception knew that only the top 100 for pilot and crew would qualify for rewards, and now we're simply ignoring the only criterion that has been clear since the beginning of the competition. Frankly, I don't understand.

Another concern is that by adding more slots for winners, how can we be sure we're not just allowing a single entity or individual to receive rewards for having more than a thousand accounts? I know it hasn't been easy to find a way to please everyone, but these changes after the end of the testnet have been regrettable.

Additionally, I noticed a lot of email activity about vulnerabilities and improvements that have not yet been evaluated. Ideally, it should be public so that everyone can know what it is about.

[fair patio]

Yeah it's super amazing you did this. I was excited when I saw it! 💯 🙌

[waxen geode]

I strongly agree to it. The rewards pool should only be distributed among top 100 pilot and crew. This was clear from day 1 and the rules shouldn't change at the end. I think we all should reject such proposal.

[low token]

This is what I like let's go with it. I just want to see the final result and all these arguments are delaying

[low token]

If the team say they'll expand it then they should. I know some people might even want winner takes it all. If they say they want to increase winner set allow them. There were many rules that were changed even at the end of the SE.

[gaunt gull]

Thank you, my friend and I spent 2 months on that 🔥

[crisp tree]

I don't see any problem with expanding the winner set. We all worked with top 100 and that's why we put in much work. But if they want to accommodate more people in the winner set. I don't see any big problem there

[drowsy ember]

Increase the winner set?.

That'd be cool. I worked so hard to be in top 109 which I know I'll achieve but if you guys want to accommodate more people. I'm happy for them and all of us. I think it will be much more decentralized as it will put the token in the hands of many more people. I respect the idea.

[narrow fable]

The issue I see in this cycle of discussion is that we only express what suits us. It has been said so much that the rules were not clear, and the only one that is well explicit is simply torn apart. Just trying to understand...
Hard work alone doesn't guarantee anything. If everyone worked equally hard, but you still didn't reach that position, it might be a sign that something was missing.

[crisp tree]

Somehow we all knew it consciously that some rules are just going to be amended or adjusted along the way. We did not just know the rules until the team saw it and deem it necessary. Somehow I'm confident in finishing top 100. But some rules were changed few days to SE end or after the end date. And it affected many people I'm not even in that category but if the team wants to accommodate them cool

[fair patio]

In a sense we need to feel linked to the matters at hand, so it makes sense we become more vocal to things affecting us. But yeah it's true.

You're referring to the rule of how submissions were examined? (quality not being the main factor, just a convincing of the examinator?).

[crisp tree]

I'm not in the picture. I'm confident that I'd finish top 100. So it's not really about me

[fair patio]

I do try to give my opinion whenever I feel like something isn't conducted fairly though. But hard at times cause there are usually sacrifices to be made. But even then, the sacrifices should be kept at minimum if possible. Like what's the best outcome for most parties involved.

[crisp tree]

I agree with you. Barest possible minimum so as not to offset the balance

[fair patio]

Hehehe else this huh #1230547749603377273 message

Holy shit that scrolled a long ride up

[crisp tree]

You got me right there. I'll definitely stoop in your dm to beg for NAM😂

[fair patio]

https://tenor.com/view/pay-me-money-kid-pay-up-gif-11573957805526147577

[narrow fable]

The big problem I see is that there are already entities and institutions participating as Pilot and Crew. If we open more slots, won't we be creating room for more problems like these? Or is it not an issue because the rules allow it? I'm in favor of more opportunities, as long as they are for those who really didn't have the chance to be selected.

[sudden burrow]

Cmon, you started again…. 🥴

[crisp tree]

I'm honestly tired

[narrow fable]

Sorry about that, I'll keep quiet now. I only expressed my opinion because I didn't agree with one of the topics Gavin suggested. But since people started ping me in the channel, I had to share my point of view. Anyway, I've said what I needed to say. I apologize if I offended anyone in any way. I wish everyone a great day.

[fringe pawn]

agree

I see there is a lot to catch up on...

[fringe pawn]

imo better to take the time needed and get it right than to rush and get it wrong

[fringe pawn]

the worse bit is that some roid classes are exclusively available to shielded-100. this was shrugged off as a "marginal" advantage at outset of competition, but with the heavy dilution and the low number of shielded-100 (100 :)) it gives a massive edge to those selected. something we pointed out at the start of the game but seems there by design

[fringe pawn]

we do love rm -rf /

[fringe pawn]

much better to wait longer and get it right. also note 22nd was announced as earliest date

[fringe pawn]

uptime very important. we are working on calculations and it seems promising...

[fringe pawn]

changing rewards scheme entirely will be unfair to those in the top 100, so I don't really see a way of doing that

[fringe pawn]

uptime is a big issue because 1. currently it's not tracked at all for post genesis (uptime = zero) and 2. there was a persistent jailing bug that meant you couldn't unjail for many epochs if you got jailed for whatever reason... so something does need adjusting wrt both those points imo. that's not a matter of changing the rules after the fact, so much as adjusting to unforeseen circumstances during the testnet.

[fringe pawn]

it's a super bad idea.

[fringe pawn]

affected by what? only thing affected is not reaching top 100. I am all for finding a bag to make some rewards to below 100 active participants and I think that's doable, but should be a separate one

[crisp tree]

I'm really tired of the arguments anyways. I just want the whole drama to end.

[fringe pawn]

I knew. I can even document it lol

[fringe pawn]

I'm almost scared I find myself agreeing with everything you write these days 😅

[fringe pawn]

think it will be better than seems honestly

[fringe pawn]

what's that only criterion? really good point about the emails!

[fringe pawn]

it's a super bad idea

[crisp tree]

Yoooooooooooooooooooo I thought SE ended over 1 week now. Let's get this over with can we?.

[fringe pawn]

mhm

[crisp tree]

I just want to see the result

[fringe pawn]

it does need to end asap but honestly it's better to wait a few more days and get a better result. disaster would be to rush something there will be debates about forever after imo

[stiff adder]

Well, getting into the SE-100 was already part of the competition right? Everyone applied and 100 were selected based on the applications so it is normal and absolutely fair that there is some advantage/reward for having been selected amongst all the thousands of applications. Secondly, getting jailed or not is also part of the competition, maybe it wasn't possible to unjail for longer but this was because there was a jailing event in the first place, those who were not jailed didn't have that issue, so yes, it is normal that those who were never jailed and kept perfect uptime are rewarded for these efforts. The possibility of getting jailed or not being selected in the SE-100 are not 'unforeseen' circumstances during the testnet but obvious and clear parts of the SE

[crisp tree]

You and I know everyone here can't be satisfied even if we are given 10years. So wasting time to buy seem like a wrong mathematics lol. Like robbing Peter to pay Paul. I don't want rushing but then coming to a definite conclusion seem hard for all of us.

[fringe pawn]

Gotta disagree with you there. And fyi there were also shielded-100 affected by the jail bug. Regardless, the current status is uptime calculation for postgen is completely broken and that does need fixing (we are working on this through a community effort some of us though - in an attempt to be useful and not only provide opinions - which of course we do too lol)

[fringe pawn]

I do think some things can be bettered in a short time and they really should. But enough said about this probably

[crisp tree]

I'm supposed to be off Internet by the end of this month. So I want to see result before I go else the curiosity will kill me

[fringe pawn]

I strongly suggest you don't go entirely offline if you win rewards. there may be certain deadlines to adhere to (this is pure speculation but seen in other testnets)

[crisp tree]

Seems I'll send you my seed phrase in case I get to top 100 lol

[dry flicker]

Please just don't start diminishing others work or skills.
Your message is so wrong on si many points, I'd rather not start another war between members of the community. This is just throwing oil on an already raging fire.
I can argue in DM if you care being proven wrong or being open minded to a transparent discussion

[stiff adder]

Please don't suggest I said something which I didn't thanks. The selection of the SE-100 was done by the Namada team so if you have concerns about this you could have let them know, I just reminded about the applications and competitive selection process for the SE-100 to justify that those selected deserve of course some advantages over those not selected, I didn't mention anything about work or skills. No need to discuss in DM, you can present your arguments here to discuss. Validators who managed to never be jailed in the whole SE for almost 2.5 months and kept an almost 100% uptime despite the innumerable halts by working super hard, staying awake many nights for all the upgrades and so on, should be rewarded for this? Yes.

[low token]

All exceptional contributions will be recognised.

[livid niche]

I don’t understand the debate about uptime. If a validator went to jail, he had already made a mistake, which means even with unjail work he had no chance of getting 99% uptime.

If, for example, only 1-2 people were to complete a task of class S, would it be cancelled? No. Then why should the uptime task be reconsidered? (By the way, a sufficient number of people have managed to maintain a high level of uptime.)

[fringe pawn]

if you are suggesting the rest of us didn't stay awake almost consecutively throughout SE you would be quite mistaken

[fringe pawn]

let me draw you a map

current state is almost all postgen have zero uptime because (I assume) team has been unable to establish a link between our participant pubkey and our validator. So atm (except for 1-2 edge cases we don't really know why) only genesis can get any uptime in scoring.

(also I assume this is because memo field is not properly preserved for the right tx types. again some of us are working to provide a map and are close to done. that will at least make it possible for team to calculate some rudimentary uptime based on signed blocks also for postgen.)

as for the jail issue, yes that does make a real difference but is less egregious than the issue sketched above..

[fringe pawn]

(and to be complete, I believe @sudden burrow have some observations about the correct way to calculate uptime which I haven't fully understood, but again all this is secondary to the fact that atm postgen get no uptime in scoring regardless of actual uptime)

[sudden burrow]

What about getting jailed coz of not ideally working change consensus key command? Also need to punish?)

[fringe pawn]

everything your fault 😏😅

(jkjk)

[sudden burrow]

What about shielded-100 who got tombstoned? This is the worse what can happen with the validator. Maybe disqualify them then? 😂

What about those shielded-100 who asks how to run the easiest command? Will not comment

So, all my three comments are just to show

Let’s end this discussion!!!

[eager ibex]

Indeed, increasing the number of award slots is a fair action. We shouldn't punish those who, due to unclear competition rules, didn't make it into the top 100. Many competition rules are not perfectly set, so there's a significant element of chance in who makes it into the top 100. For example, if I had known that creating a Shielded application only required an IBC transfer to a ZNAM address, I would have done so without hesitation. If I had known that one could register as both pilot and crew, I would have registered for both at the start. If I knew we could team up to complete S class and all receive the same score, I would definitely team up with friends to achieve more S class results (of course, these are all issues with the competition rules). Initially, rewarding only the top 100 was something everyone knew, but that was under the assumption of flawless rules. However, many people are currently missing out on the top 100 due to problems with the rules, and they too deserve to be rewarded.

[dry flicker]

You mean like :

• having 10x more naan (or was it even 100x please confirm how much of a advantage/privilege this was) at the start of the competition
• having specific C and B class that other pilots can't compete with
• having a dedicated/privileged channel of discussion where you got the info about the restart early on, and that resulted in most of us being jailed (you forgot about this one @sudden burrow )
  There is "advantage" and there is "privilege", and in a competition, that do not result in a fair game.

I'm pretty sure that this has been mentioned before (by @potent bronze I think, but maybe I'm wrong) that being a shield-100 is more about "you have a responsibility to the network and the others" and less about "this gives you special rights".

Take a good look at pretoro screenshot...🤓 Take a calculator and consider how much of an advantage, being a shield-100 has provided. In all the circles lined except the last maybe, being a shield-100 is either direct bonus points or bonus knowledge that leads to bonus points.
There you have some of my public arguments 🫡
I can understand a slight starter boost because you were "hand-picked by the team", but at that point, especially because S4 and S5 are being cancelled for everyone, these points mean an almost guaranteed spot in top 25. Is that fair? No

[thin drum]

Shielded 100 who got tombstoned should be DQed and their rewards distributed imo

Fair is fair

And Shielded 100 alr had a MASSIVE advantage at the start

[dry heart]

I feel like he is a sybil and most of his wallets are in the top 200 or 300 😂

[eager ibex]

Okay, quite interesting. Pointing out the issues with the competition rules and requesting to increase the reward range == sybil, pretty good. When there's no valid argument, personal attacks happen. In fact, you just don't want those of us affected by the competition rules to have a voice. Moreover, it's not just me who has pointed out the issues with the competition rules; in fact, Gavin also indicated that there are problems with the rules. Is he also a sybil then? Therefore, do not make baseless accusations. If there is any evidence to prove that I or someone else is a sybil, it can be directly submitted to the officials.

[eager ibex]

Yes, brother, at least 280 out of the top 300 accounts are mine, you've caught me. You are indeed a clever little friend.

[gaunt gull]

send me your secret phrases, waiting for it. My DM always open for it 👀

[eager ibex]

In fact, I find that you seem to be avoiding the issue. The core point of the problems I mentioned above is not about begging for charity, but rather that due to the imperfections in the competition rules, some people who should have been in the top 100 did not make it, not because they weren't excellent. Therefore, expanding the award scope is not a form of charity, but a means to partially mitigate the consequences caused by the imperfect competition rules. I hope you do not intentionally misinterpret my meaning.

This is because these issues were not so apparent before the SE ended, and at that time, we were all busy completing various SE tasks. In fact, there were some debates at the time, just not as intense as they are now. You can check the chat logs in the other channels.

In fact, what's slowing down the progress now is not our debate, but because the database has become too large. Also, seeing the results, we all hope to see a fairer outcome.

[rapid sparrow]

Whatever not cool! Bye

[dry heart]

Hire me, I work as a Data Engineer

I don't think the database exceeds 1TB

[scenic sun]

Lol, everyone should stop making suggestions, because you never know if you will be accused of being a witch.

[scenic sun]

The database has become too large, is an announcement released by Gavin. You can apply for a position with Gavin.

[dry heart]

I see but i dont think it too large as they said 🙂

dont see any position is opening to apply mate

[stiff adder]

From the Namada blogspot (https://namada.net/blog/the-namada-shielded-expedition): '100 Pilots (validators) will be selected by the Anoma Foundation, Heliax, and Knowable as pre-genesis Pilots. The remaining validators who submitted a valid form will also receive NAAN at the Shielded ecosystem genesis block and can become validators post-genesis.'

-You question how many NAAN the Anoma Foundation/Heliax/Knowable gave to the selected 100 pilots compared to the not selected pilots. Well, they could have also decided to not allow not selected pilots and the competition only amongst the selected 100 pilots, so I guess feel lucky that they let everyone compete

-Again, if the Foundation/Heliax/Knowable created some tasks that only pre-genesis pilots can do this was their decision, again feel lucky that they created many other tasks that all non-selected pilots can do

-One more time, the Foundation/Heliax/Knowable created a dedicated SE-100 channel to coordinate the pre-launch and launch of the SE. But they also created other public and announcements channels, and sometimes information was shared earlier in the public announcements channel than in the SE-channel

-You might not like or agree about the decision of the Foundation/Heliax/Knowable but they created the SE and made the rules and decisions, it is not you who make the decisions. Their goal was not to make an ‘equal’ game for all the pilots, it is clear they wanted to provide some advantages to the selected pilots, otherwise why make a selection right? And in fact they gave for the S category which all the pilots can do 375B roid the same as B + C categories together, and what will define the winners is the S category since for B and C each pool of points is shared amongst many pilots

-Also, you made a typo, the tasks that are being audited are s5 and s6. And no, I don’t think signing pre-genesis tx or similar guarantees a spot in the top 25, but it will be the hidden A tasks and S tasks mostly

[livid niche]

Regarding your screenshot, many of the highlighted tasks could have been completed by everyone, including post-genesis validators. The tasks to "Initialize your validator post-genesis," "Become part of the validator set for at least one epoch," "Start your validator as quickly as possible after the upgrade height," "Keep average uptime of at least 95% across the Shielded Expedition" (there are post-genesis validators whose uptime exceeds 95%, and I believe the team will correct any display issues), and "Unidentified*" (which are also tasks for all) were all achievable.

[quiet sluice]

What is the team doing? It has been 10 days since the testnet was closed. Is it so difficult to make a decision?

[dry flicker]

OMG brilliant, thanks for your answer, now I don't even have to answer 💪
"Feel lucky that they let everyone compete and not just just the 100 pre genesis"
I'm just gonna ignore your message as this is so pretentious and condescending, I'm just gonna let it hang as is, instead of arguing with you as I wanted to do in my initial message

[quiet sluice]

You have so much discussion here, why not urge the team to make a final decision quickly?

[dry flicker]

@stiff adder with all my love 😘

[quiet sluice]

The final decision always lies with the team. This is not something that people involved in SE should worry about.

[fringe pawn]

are you actively not listening? atm all postgen have zero uptime

regardless of actual uptime

[livid niche]

You are now looking at the Nebb, which has not updated data for a very long time. I think the team will fix the display problem.

There is blockchain data from which you can get real validator uptime data. This is public

[crisp tree]

I understand what you're saying it's not a bad idea at all

[fringe pawn]

have you tried? I can guarantee you this is not a trivial exercise.

[fringe pawn]

of course it's a bad idea. pure opportunism but I will leave it at that

[livid niche]

Yes, we checked the uptime of our validator.

[fringe pawn]

how?

[livid niche]

By checking whether a validator signed a block, the blockchain contains this information, validator signed the block or not.

I also saw that some participants also checked uptime and posted the results.

[fringe pawn]

there are some complicating factors in compiling aggregate data for all validators. namely that tm address changes with certain operations and aren't kept in permanent record as linked to your participant pubkey.

[livid niche]

Regarding the display issue, it's only a matter of time before the team corrects it. If it is not resolved, it can be contested with data from the blockchain if the validator was indeed signing blocks.

[fringe pawn]

that's easier when you know your tm and validator tnam. but anyways bottom line is for some reason team hasn't been able to connect those two yet (and tbh I understand why)

[dry heart]

you are starting again 🤣

[eager ibex]

You think this way only because you are a beneficiary. I am just thinking from the perspective of an ordinary person

[fringe pawn]

Mr. paopao, I would rather not engage with you tbh. Because you come with constant subtle personal digs while claiming others are making personal attacks. Please just stop replying to my stuff. Thanks

[fringe pawn]

what 🙂

[eager ibex]

There's nothing right or wrong about it; everyone just stands from their own perspective. I think there's no need for you to ask me not to reply to you; you can simply choose not to reply to me. As everyone knows, It's harder to demand of others than to demand of oneself."

[prisma meteor]

Still debate. Lol.

[sudden burrow]

unstoppable madness... 👻

[green ember]

I get the feeling some users insist on growing the number of winners may or may not have two or three more accounts between 100 and 200 ranking. based on the attitude they've been showing I dont really think they seek fair distribution, it seems more like self interest. If foundation want to increase the allocation for more winners (and it comes from treasury) then by all means would be happy to see that. I completely disagree with sharing top 100 useres to others. mostly because the amount of work,enery, cost of services . . . not really comparable

thats the only thing I would write regarding the situation and will wait for the resualt

[eager ibex]

Yes, of course I speak out for my own interests, but is there really a problem with that? And aren't you also speaking from your own interests when you stand there and say these things? There's no need to pretend to occupy the moral high ground to criticize others. Moreover, it is indeed due to issues with the competition rules that there is significant randomness among the top 100, unrelated to work, energy, or cost of services.

[crisp tree]

Just bring out result please

[fringe pawn]

the results need to be well processed. best not to rush imo

[low token]

Its getting to 2 weeks does that sound rushed?

Maybe they're not giving it much attention or they don't have enough hands on it

[fringe pawn]

given current state of data, I think so yes. rushed or not has more to do with "is it ready" than "how long time has passed"

[fringe pawn]

or it's a more complicated task than they imagined. but yes could definitely be

[dry heart]

⏲️

[low token]

I don't think anybody persuaded them to do it. The team just decided to accommodate more people. That's not the first rule that was changed.

[rapid sparrow]

I don't see where that's coming from. But I have not seen a chat log that team propose for expanding winner set

[low token]

@rapid sparrow read this and allow the stuff to rest

[fair patio]

Hey, actually ever since the beginning there were already potential plans to expand. Due to how many people were already not liking the small set allowed to win. They back then said they'd see how it would go and that they had like a reserve in place for this. This was in early validator circles.

So this idea of expanding is not even something new that came out of the blue post competition.

[rapid sparrow]

Well if that's the case it's okay.
Will it effect the existing prize pool or it will be allocated from elsewhere

[fair patio]

I know pros and cons to this. But every decision is having pros and cons.

And no, it shouldn't affect existing prize pool.

Atleast if they spoke of a reserve and are holding their word.

[rapid sparrow]

If that's it, I'm totally fine.

[fair patio]

Though mind you, this is also not sure. It was just back then an idea they gave.

Dunno if you remember how pissed everyone was 😂. The community and all those bots raiding etc.

[rapid sparrow]

I know haha. It just pissed me off.

[fair patio]

They found the competition way too difficult + the set of winners way too low.

Response was to create the #🫂︱se-community-support channel plus they said to us not to take the "only 100 or 200 will win" as the complete truth. Things could change.

But yes, that may just have been words to calm people down. So also take all this for a grain of salt.

In the end we'll have to agree to their decisions hehe. Just hope the decisions mitigate sacrifice as much as possible for all parties involved.

[rapid sparrow]

Yeah right. I'll just leave this with the team. No more comments.
Let the good things prevail.

[fair patio]

Have a good Sunday man!

[rapid sparrow]

You too :))

[fair patio]

Hehe thank you ❤️

[gaunt gull]

Have a nice Sunday guys. My popcorn is out. Come back later haha

[cyan tusk]

Hi bro

[gaunt gull]

back to telegram bro :))

[fair patio]

Let me start something again, make sure to ready your popcorn

[cyan tusk]

Noooo

[gaunt gull]

hold on, I need to go out to buy more

[fair patio]

😂 TOO LATE, UNLEASH THE FURYYYY

I am against...

War.

[gaunt gull]

turn off the screen

[fair patio]

❤️😥

[gaunt gull]

Hades was offline

[fair patio]

Bwhaha.

Hades is not here for the moment. He returned to the underworld to attend to his pet dog Cerberus.

But speak a message after this screaming soul and he'll get back to you momentarily.

[prisma meteor]

The pet dog is Wiki dog. 🤣

When remove all task S5 and S6. So i think we will have a lot of player get the same roids

[fringe pawn]

that's true. but it was never the idea it would be a redistribution

I am much in favor of this btw

as long as within the remits of an added pool

[fair patio]

This isn't the case right?

[frail nova]

Why get rid of S5 and S6?

[fair patio]

Or have I missed something here

[fringe pawn]

I think we are in complete agreement

that was re the voices advocating a redistribution

I finished uptime!!!!

[frail nova]

Is there notice for this?

[fringe pawn]

just gotta sleep a bit and I will provide source files on a web for people to inspect / make helpful comments

[fair patio]

Huh, where does it say this?

[fringe pawn]

re everyone here wanting a redistribution. zen you need to sleep too I think 🙂

[fair patio]

Oh nice! @trim yarrow was of help?

[fringe pawn]

in the end no. because that approach did not yield anything. I mean nodejom was very helpful but unfortunately those files didn't yield results (for disadvantages of the results returned, no fault of his)

[fair patio]

I got a feeling we're now basing things off of what people speculate rather than ideas from team

[fringe pawn]

but realized an obvious approach I missed while talking it over with him so all is good

[fair patio]

My day started, so don't need to sleep hehe.

[fringe pawn]

I think we are totally misunderstanding one another here. I am not suggesting there are any plans to redistribute

we are in complete agreement 🙂

[fair patio]

I only see people speak of upping the slots, not about redistribution. Got a feeling this blank was getting filled without speaking directly bout it during the whole back and forth.

[fringe pawn]

all I am saying is I am in complete and enthusiastic favor of expanding the prize pool as long as it does not involve a redistribution (some in here have argued for the latter persistently). However I think if expanded it should be on an "active participants" basis only. (discord, not just chain)

[fair patio]

Ah nice, well glad you got that sorted out! 💯

[fair patio]

Ah, I never realized that when I read it all 😥. (that people were vouching for redistribution implicitly)

Can't find a message either 😅.

[fringe pawn]

there is one in your inbox though hahaha

[fair patio]

There are so many

It overwhelms me

Now random friends asking me how it's going with the competition 😂.

I DON'T KNOWWWW

Stop askinggg

Getting suspicious bout errthanggg

Nah I'm kidding. Tranquilo.

[trim yarrow]

@fringe pawn already had a good working base and my indexing did not bring more information than what he already had, but our discussions led to new avenues so in itself a good team effort

[fair patio]

Sometimes a convo could already trigger a progression of sorts

Thank you for having taken the time though dude

[trim yarrow]

It was a pleasure 😉

[frail nova]

@potent bronze @slender wave In recent times, I've noticed proposals to eliminate tasks S5 and S6. In my opinion, let's stick to the rules and tasks of the competition as originally intended. Perhaps these proposals come from individuals who were unable to complete tasks S5 and S6, and they are trying to suggest their removal. In fact, some of us have contributed our source code PRs by completing task S5 and S6. It's effortful and takes a lot of time.

[fair patio]

Really appreciated!

And for sure @fringe pawn base was already almost there if I understood it correctly. Just had this one problem with the tm addresses. Sometimes it just takes a bit of extra time, experimenting around and sharing thoughts.

I at times get epiphanies after just a single question someone asks lol.

[woven gull]

I don't think this proposal came from the participants. Since Gavin was the first to talk about the re-audit of tasks S5-6. This means the team has already made a decision.

[fringe pawn]

I think the big problem here is lack of consistency across evaluations, and that does need to harmonized somehow. I did PR as well, but got a lesser category, which was probably appropriate. (I stand to possibly lose some significant points with a potential revision btw, so it's not in my own interest, I just don't see any other way if there is going to be a single standard)

[fair patio]

This harmonization you speak of should have been a standard across the entirety of the competition. Not afterwards. It's like the analogy I gave messages back. Playing a chess game and afterwards rules are changed and even changes on the board.

I do see other alternatives which I've expressed too often now. But I don't think it's become a matter of what's fair for most parties anymore.

Or perhaps better to say. What's considered a right or wrong move is changed due to the opponent going back in time and changing their pieces around.

[fringe pawn]

what do you mean?

[low token]

Check mateee. Your queen is gone

[fringe pawn]

?

[fathom hawk]

@potent bronze is Uptime in Nebb still being calculated even after SE ends? I see my uptime dropped to 98.8% becuase After SE ends I did some tests which may effect my uptime ( not 99% ) Also I might stop my validator today .Can you please confirm this Thanks

[fringe pawn]

at least you have uptime 🙂

[stiff adder]

@sterile thorn released before the uptime file (https://github.com/nodiums/namada_se_uptime/tree/main), with the number of total blocks signed in the SE including for post-genesis pilots. The highest number of blocks signed is around 237k and this is close to 100% uptime, ourselves and others have around 100% uptime, but yes in the Nebb it now shows incorrect uptime for many that in that file have near 100% uptime

[fringe pawn]

lot of time passed since release of those files..

blocks signed for 100% uptime for genesis validators should be closer to 355k

[stiff adder]

That file was released the 12th April, after the SE had ended, and of course uptime is only counted during the SE, not after SE had ended in epoch 91. I mean they even said keep validators and infra running a few more days just to help check some pending submissions and then they said validators/infra can be stopped, so obviously uptime is not counted after epoch 91😅

[fringe pawn]

you said highest number of blocks signed is 237k and 100% uptime. SE ended at 355326. So if baseline for those files are 237k, that corresponds better to block height

[stiff adder]

Checked again, yes there is second file until 355326. One from 1-237906, second file from 237907-355327. So, those pilots (both pre and post genesis) who have around over 351,773 blocks signed combining the two files have 99% uptime in the SE

[fringe pawn]

doing some of my own uptime calculations atm. will compare with those files. the problem is they are more or less useless for post-genesis since they don't map to our public keys (in terms of scoring points)

also note tm address changes with change consensus key, so if anyone used that method they need to look at all tm addresses they had

[fringe pawn]

these files are woefully inadequate. there are many more validators post-gen than listed in these files

we ran into similar issues trying to create similar files off rpc calls

instead relying partly on indexer to create mine

[stiff adder]

You can compare your results with @sterile thorn and if it is the same then you can also verify with the evaluating team to have the total number of pilots with over 99% and 95% uptime during the SE

[fringe pawn]

if you send me a dm I can show you my preliminary results, but i've only focused on post-gen for the time being

[livid niche]

About 50 validators have an uptime of more than 95%.
The impact of uptime on ratings is exaggerated; some S tasks have a greater impact than uptime.

[barren pulsar]

it should be 95% or 99.95% ?

[fringe pawn]

two subclasses

[barren pulsar]

wdym?
for 99.99% you should have less than 5min downtime per month
for 99.00% the threshold is around 7 hours

[fringe pawn]

there are two subclass awards for uptime

95
and 99

[barren pulsar]

but awa said it is 99.99 and 99.95%
#📣-se-announcements message

@potent bronze are you considering these remarks #📣-se-announcements message mentioned by awa in uptime calculation ?

[fair patio]

Hey don't really wanna start about the topic anymore 😭. I hope it made sense eventually, else I'll some time speak on it in DMs if you really want to. Though most info and perspectives on all this is above.

I saw your sheet btw. The mapping is super useful! Missing key component for linking public keys to validators!

Great job!

I was actually shocked seeing my uptime being around 96% :/! I never got jailed but I did have some epochs I missed. How was this calculated? It was minus first 2 epochs cause none of post genesis validators could run at those moments and remaining was calculated by counting all signed blocks?

For instance if I missed 3 epochs in total, that would correct to having missed 1 epoch divided by 91?

PS: I'm simplifying it atm by using epochs instead of block count ofcourse.

[fringe pawn]

yes

[fringe pawn]

yes

ideally

or maybe idek what I'm doing 🙂

also calculated govt percentage just now 🙂

[fair patio]

Haha, if you checked the blocks signed, then it should be all good.

Would then be:
(total_blocks_signed + total_blocks_till_epoch_2) / (total_blocks_till_epoch_91)

[austere rose]

Where are u seeing the correct uptime calculation? I wanna check mine too

[fair patio]

Pretoro is still working on it in the back

[fringe pawn]

send me a dm I'll share the link

[fringe pawn]

no that formula doesn't make sense 🙂

[fair patio]

Team might have different ideas though, so I like that you gave the components separately + an example that way.

[fringe pawn]

wait lol

trying again haha

[fair patio]

😂

[fringe pawn]

ok so here goes

[fair patio]

Hehe. The formula I gave gives back the amount someone signed

And acts as if the person signed all first blocks in first two epochs

Basically nullifying that

[fringe pawn]

blocks_signed / 347517

[fringe pawn]

for post-gen

[fair patio]

You could rewrite the one I wrote as well.

It's perspective

[fringe pawn]

or in abstract terms: blocks_signed/(blocks_until_e_91 - blocks_first_2_epochs)

[fringe pawn]

I guess

it's not the formula I used though

[fair patio]

Hmm wait a sec.

Yours makes more sense than mine indeed.

Mine would still account for the first 2 epochs.

I just wonder how it becomes different percentages.

[fringe pawn]

I think they are equivalent

[fair patio]

I'm mindfucking myself over something as simple as this now.

[fringe pawn]

you are adding and I am subtracting

=

[fair patio]

Let's say we have

1000 signed, 200 in first two epochs and 2000 in total.

[fringe pawn]

but I think mine is more neat conceptually 🙂

let's move this to dm shall we?

too much clutter

[fair patio]

0.55 is your formula
Mine gives 0.6.

Why lol, what am I missing here.

[fringe pawn]

hm

you're gonna make me do all these calculations aren't you 🙂

[fair patio]

Yours bases percentage off a smaller set, mine bases it off all blocks but acts as if we signed all first blocks in those 2 epochs.

[fringe pawn]

could be my formula is off, it's definitely possible

[fair patio]

Not saying that though, think it's a perspective thing

Tho I really thought the answers would be the same.

😂 But percentages huh.

[fringe pawn]

I think they're equivalent tbh

[fair patio]

Filling out the calculation doesn't say this 😭 or I'm doing something noob.

Could you try with those simple numbers I just gave?

[fringe pawn]

take this and subtract e_2_blocks on both sides of the fraction

you get my formula

it's mathematically equivalent

[fair patio]

Just do the calculation and you'll see it is different

[fringe pawn]

no but it's literally equivalent.

unless my math is too rusty

[fair patio]

I understand what you're trying to say, subtracting from denominator and the other word I don't know what it was called in English anymore.

[fringe pawn]

oh no lol. my math is rusty

I'm wrong

about the equivalency bit

[fair patio]

Mine too though. We should code in rust.

Badum tss

I think your approach is more so the perspective the team would have

[fringe pawn]

in any case my formula counts actually signed blocks as a fraction of possible window to sign, so I think it's pretty solid

[fair patio]

Yeah your window is correct

Mine is keeping the window as pre genesis

[fringe pawn]

but rn I'm just arguing the point because I really don't want to redo the queries

[fair patio]

It's actually unfair

Cause if we compare with pre genesis. They could have missed blocks in first two epochs

And we get away with having a perfect score in that region (up till epoch 2) if we take my approach

[fringe pawn]

I thought your approach was wrong?

[fair patio]

Hehe, forgive me, this was just a good exercise mathematically

[fringe pawn]

we also get perfect score in my formula

[fair patio]

Uhm no not really, we only focus on the blocks we were around.

[fringe pawn]

yeah but they have the added weight and privilege and joy of being the backbone of the network

[fair patio]

True hahaaha oh lord, morals.

[fringe pawn]

if you sign all blocks in my formula you get a perfect score. test with examples

in yours I think you would get slightly above 100%

[fair patio]

Ah well, team has to decide how they'll calculate it.

[fair patio]

That would mean you'd be able to get yours turned on in either epoch 1 or 2.

[fringe pawn]

yeah yours give 102% 🙂 (edit: this was incorrect)

[fair patio]

Or the boundaries are not correct.

Like the endpoints for epochs.

[fringe pawn]

just that your formula is off, sorry

[fair patio]

Lol that's not possible dude.

[fringe pawn]

or rather that it doesn't fit the problem being asked

[fair patio]

Nvm I'm not gonna argue over this

You keep doing this bullshit.

You didn't like how I was speaking facts up top and you felt butthurt back then, DM'ing me you didn't appreciate the way I spoke. But you keep doing this yourself.

Peace.

[fringe pawn]

dude we are discussing a formula here. this isn't even a discussion I wanted

[fair patio]

Ciao.

Don't ask me any more help, countless fucking times.

[fringe pawn]

sorry if I offended you. was not my intention at all

[potent bronze]

i've confirmed with devs that the calculation will only be based on uptime up until Block Height 355326

[stiff adder]

Thanks for this clarification, and about task C V2 Gavin, did the devs say 'as quickly as possible' means the first block signed?

[rigid crag]

Hi Gavin nebb has been updated is it final for A and C tasks?

[potent bronze]

which rules changed?

[potent bronze]

which rules were changed? we only discussed evaluation criteria. if you want to review what's been discussed and address my reasoning, imo that's productive. starting the conversation over again from the beginning imo is not productive

[potent bronze]

noted

[potent bronze]

thanks, yes, we should update timeline expectations asap

[potent bronze]

i think we've all been sloppy with the name of this, but we've interpreted it as a contribution that involves either 1) building the core protocol or 2) improving upon the cryptography involved in the core protocol

[left rover]

I mean if.

[potent bronze]

wdym? i don't follow

[rapid sparrow]

Gavin, are the scores. updated? Recently saw an update on nebb despite it 's being informed that nebb is broken!

[potent bronze]

we haven't discussed the size of the winning set yet 🤷 seems like you're jumping the gun

also we can't publish the results of emails that we don't have access to

[narrow fable]

I understand. Thanks for getting back to me. Appreciated🤝

[potent bronze]

pls keep accusations out of this thread

[potent bronze]

same as above msg

[potent bronze]

dude

[potent bronze]

i think you mean evaluation criteria for S Class submissions, for which there wasn't any defined. they should be been defined sooner (like before the competition began)

[potent bronze]

my understanding is that the scores still need S Class submissions before being correct, and they're almost done

[rapid sparrow]

oh okay thank you !

[sterile thorn]

this was stopped at 91 epoch

[rigid crag]

It means the problem with db has been solved? And we are done with A and C tasks?

[stiff adder]

Thanks for the information, it is 100% sure that many approved S class tasks are still not added in the latest update of the Nebb today. What would be very useful to clarify is: 1) Are all the points for A tasks already on the current nebb? 2) The points for which C and B subcategories are already in the current nebb? Because certainly if the uptime and other things are still being clarified/calculated not all C and B points are already on the current nebb

[fringe pawn]

sorry was under the impression they were made at fork when I made the comment

[potent bronze]

ostensibly everything but S Class is in the Nebb, but we have identified two items to verify:

1. uptime tracking accuracy
2. removal of the two Crew tasks (related to shielding, see Apr 5 announcement)

i've asked for the code that's used to track and calculate uptime

[stiff adder]

Well, I guess the C V2 you mentioned you still have to clarify is not still of the nebb?, or if it is we still don't know the meaning of 'as quickly as possible' I guess. Governance roids are also included then too I assume?

[potent bronze]

wdym?

[stiff adder]

Here you replied to me 'noted' to check the C V2 task 🙂

[fringe pawn]

I think government participation is not accounted for correctly. sending you some info directly

[stiff adder]

It could be added actually if many got governance points then pool of points very spread and not much impact on the ranking

[potent bronze]

i think we'll know this when we see the code for uptime

[fringe pawn]

I did the calculations.

[stiff adder]

you mean total who got 90% and 99% governance participation?

[potent bronze]

is this a productive exchange? if not, pls just wait for the code

[pine agate]

Hi Gavin, The Nebb's score seems to be very messy, the score is not correct. Can it be updated accurately?

[stiff adder]

Hmmm I don't follow Gavin, in the blogpost it says for C V2: 'Start your validator as quickly as possible after the upgrade height', we know the upgrade height and those who signed the first block, what's ambiguous is the meaning of 'as quickly as possible', the Namada team needs to clarify what they meant by that, if first block signed or if something else, but definitely 'as quickly as possible' implies the first block signed, since there is not quicker than this possible

[potent bronze]

can you pls be more specific?

[barren pulsar]

hey @potent bronze , could you please clarify the remark#1 and #2 from #📣-se-announcements message are applied in the NEBB?

[potent bronze]

ohhh yes, def
thank you

[potent bronze]

thanks for bringing to my attn! will do

[pine agate]

I'm Junkio ranked at position 55 and there's another person at the same rank. I've completed most of the tasks, but The Nebb has updated 2-3 times and my score hasn't changed. I keep getting stuck at the same ranking position. I've checked the basic tasks of most of the top-ranked individuals, but my score still falls far behind. (Especially basic tasks and hidden basic tasks).

My question is: What will happen if my score is still not updated correctly at the last minute? Is there any accurate data to cross-reference?

[potent bronze]

there should be a) raw data and b) i think we should have code that was used to track/compute before anything is made final

[pine agate]

Thank you!

[fringe pawn]

mine got stuck similarly a couple of months ago. not sure how they resolved it but think it was unstuck finally after some manual operation idk

[stiff adder]

I would actually rephrase this Gavin as 'ostensibly everything but S Class tasks since the last S class db update is in the Nebb', because in the current nebb the top 5 are there because of early s5 and s6 tasks approved currently being audited. Ideally, all the approved S tasks in the WIP tab on the excel should be added to the nebb to get the proper estimate of the ranking, and then if there are a few pending tasks or some s5 or s6 to remove this could be done later. Because there are some pilots for example in current nebb below 25th that should be in top 10 or top 5 with all the tasks added to the nebb

[tawny furnace]

Will the final rankings be in nebb or outside somewhere?

[stiff adder]

Great, looking forward to the timeline

[stiff adder]

Before it was mentioned that the nebb was not going to be fixed and some list would be shared instead with the ranking. However, now it seems they changed their decision and are fixing the nebb actually

[frail nova]

Me too. It still stands still at the same rank as before

[frail nova]

Hey mate, please stop bringing up the issue of removing S5 and S6. It won't happen.

[fair patio]

Yep, guess I officially had it. What just happened was for me a summary of what has been going on in here post competition and why it bothered me to the point where I just snapped.

This behavior of "No, this is right, you're wrong." that keeps circling around and around. We can't seem to come to terms or see how 9 out of 10 times multiple perspectives hold truth. To the point where we deny even trying to understand the other person. It has to be this or that.

I will apologize @fringe pawn, for my outburst was misdirected. I also exaggerated big time with saying how often you ask for help.

I'm just tired (in general) of there not being an understanding or consideration for alternatives without or the least amount of impact dealt to everyone involved.

I will go away for a while, cause in my current state I'll won't be any good. Apologies for making this so personal now, Gavin. I'm also just human in the end, there'd be something terribly off if I always tried to be Mr. Nice Guy.

Or I was high 24/7 and on cloud 9...

[crisp tree]

We can possibly see the final list this week?

[sudden burrow]

take my bat, and some glass bottles and go smash them 😄 helps a lot
don't forget to take a bottle of whiskey, just don't smash it till it is empty

[rapid sparrow]

Possibility no one's fault here .
Just directing each other debate and throwing tantrums on ourselves because of all these unclear rules and conditions.

Like said blame no one, but

Just blame the organizing team. Don't let your frustration be between each other. Lately I have changed and not into debate and neither much I care now.

I'm like let them do whatever they want.

Cause this thing doesnt excite me anymore. Has gone too far. But still have spend some time and energy worth a while to come by check if I did win something.

[potent bronze]

yeah, i mean, this competition has been stressful/exhausting, the problems to be resolved are nuanced, and the people affected need to be heard

the problem is that these are the conditions for in-fighting

sorry for the protracted discussions. we're working to land the plane without the crash of cohesion

[potent bronze]

this 💯

[potent bronze]

working on getting this from the devs, will update tomorrow

[potent bronze]

ah, gotcha

1. ~~we are awaiting feedback from eng team about four submissions in particular ⏳ ~~
2. we need the rest of the security emails (shouldn't be too many; we're told that none are actual vulnerabilities, but we need to verify / be accountable) ⏳
3. Spork needs to consolidate security emailed submissions with the S Class sheet (many were only submitted as emails, without tpknam) ⬅️

Spork's plan is to update everything at once, so that there isn't a lot of volatility with repeated changes

[dry flicker]

The last message is very poetic.

Will we remember the last true Pilot (you) that landed plane in a desperate situation, or will we all burn in an epic crash on a random asteroid, without even a "boom", because space, no sound, etc

[potent bronze]

not with a bang but a whimper

[dry flicker]

Actually not even burn, coz space, so, no oxygen. So it would be an insignificant "pop", except from inside the spaceship

Anyways, I'm off playing cross the ages and gods unchained in the meantime.
Jojoraky self preservation strategy seems to be the valid one, if even Zen loses his marbles.

[fair patio]

Yeah, I understand.

Feel like I jumped out the plane and deserted those trying to land it well 😥. Imagine me somersaulting and having a panicky mid-air childish tantrum.

[fringe pawn]

will there be a time period with the possibility of any appeals / corrections if there are errors in the calculations?

[dry flicker]

That's the consequence when there are 10000 people in the plane but only 100 parachutes (if you catch my drift)

[fringe pawn]

is it just me or are there 113 genesis signatures btw?

[young hearth]

feel you... indeed it was long and stressfull journey....and still we dont know the outcome and some final decisions.

But anyway, it was good experience🫡
Take a rest, you are a great competitor 🙌 🔋
For now we can do nothing, just chill, and wait for final results

[crisp tree]

I wish yall safe landing brothers

If I don't get a parachute I turn to parasite and turn everybody in space zombies.

[sudden burrow]

https://tenor.com/view/airplane-airport-gif-26317318

that plane just forgot it needed to land 🤣

[fringe pawn]

don't worry about it zen. appreciate you setting the record straight.

[tulip lion]

so meaning all S class submissions in WIP tab except security vulnerabilities are already accounted for in the Nebb points ?

[stiff adder]

No, there are approved S tasks from all categories still not in the nebb... basically all the hundreds of S tasks approved after the last S class db update in march are still not in the nebb hence expect huge changes to the current nebb

[eager ibex]

In fact, the timing of the point and the initial bond are closely related.

It seems that the earlier the bond, the higher the score, I guess the score from the bond is probably not evenly distributed.

Of course, according to the rules, it should be evenly distributed, but it seems that it isn't actually divided evenly (of course, this is just a guess based on my observations)

[icy pond]

@potent bronze How soon will the results of shielded expedition be published?

It's been 12 days 😯

[eager ibex]

Gavin said yesterday that he would make the announcement tomorrow, so it should be today that the announcement will be made.

[icy pond]

they said "update", not announcement

[nova flint]

Hi @potent bronze! One of our submitted S Class tasks is still under review (Building Shielded Applications category/ submission #2846 ). Is there a chance that it will be checked with the upcoming Spork's update?

[sterile thorn]

Would be interesting to see all hidden asteroids
Will be surprised if steward task mandatory assuming all validators voted mainly for their friends only

[woven gull]

I don’t have pilot friends, but I managed to become a steward. But I agree, becoming a steward was problematic, starting from searching for tokens in order to create a steward proposal, ending with getting voted for you (essentially random).
But competition is competition) Some created a lot of steward proposal and only became stewards after 3-5 attempts.

[sterile thorn]

i had 6 proposals in different time and never was selected; and i didnt had issues with tokens

[rigid crag]

it was easy to be a steward you should have chosen the epoch period 4 not 2.

[sterile thorn]

or previous testnet

[green ember]

approving a normal proposal was impossible let alone becoming a steward :))
whatever you wrote in proposal was a straight "Nay"
I guess we dont forget network upgrade and hard fork proposal were also rejected :)))

[woven gull]

Steward and default proposals require different numbers of votes. It is incorrect to compare them. As wrote above, in order to significantly increase the chances that a sufficient number of votes will be cast for you, it was necessary to increase the number of voting epoch from 2 to 4.

[green ember]

I know the rules buddy. was joking to loosen up the vibe a bit

[stiff adder]

Hey Gavin for some S task categories some pilots have the same S category approved several times on the excel, it was mentioned before that even several S tasks in the same category are approved in the excel for the same pilot it is only counted once in the nebb but has this been 100% checked and verified? Because there are some concerns that some pilots in the current nebb are getting points several times for the same S class category

[fringe pawn]

pretty sure their parsing of the file removes duplicates for same subclass for same public key

[dry flicker]

Yeah that was the official answer previously when this issue was raised

[fair patio]

Every scenario can be a lesson and an opportunity to check oneself and learn from one's behavior.

I'm at the moment more so skewing that record, rather than setting it straight. But I'm willing to take that bullet and own up to the behaviors of the child within. I hope you did the same.

[fair patio]

Yeah you're right man, thank you dude, you also went hard at it!

Indeed we can only wait and we'll see what the outcome will be like.

[fair patio]

Haha, scary! Make sure she lands safely yo. Else we'll get a zombie hive mind going on after the results.

[fair patio]

Yeah I don't think there were exactly 100 pregenesis if I remember correctly

[potent bronze]

when 'security vulnerabilities' and 'building protocol..' are done, Spork will announce a final grace period for identifying human errors

[potent bronze]

not yet

[fringe pawn]

Mate I didn't do anything that warranted that reaction. I'm sorry if you had a bad day but I can't take responsibility for that.

[icy pond]

So there won't be any results today?

[fair patio]

I'd check your dm, it will give you insight about yourself then.

[potent bronze]

depends

i'd like to give people what's needed to independently verify. we're awaiting the raw scoring data and the code used to compile the scoring data ⏳

[potent bronze]

i think we'll see this in the code that was used to compile the scoring data, which i would like to get and publish asap

[icy pond]

pre-results not today, right?

[pine agate]

Maybe "yes"

[potent bronze]

probably this can be verified with the code (when it's released), yeah?

[potent bronze]

for S Class? not today, will keep everyone posted

[pine agate]

Hi Gavin, could it be understood that updating the current Task S score will not be updated until issues related to the scores of basic tasks (hidden) are resolved beforehand?

[stiff adder]

Hopefully by Friday at least Gavin, otherwise it's going to drag on to the third week of waiting

[fair patio]

I kissed pretoro, all is good now.

😂

[fringe pawn]

so I was going to post this but zen beat me to it: for everyone wondering, me and zen made friends again. I could have admittedly been a bit less brief if I had not been as exhausted from doing queries all day. and a bunch of other stuff we resolved in private

[fair patio]

And I shouldn't have been a dick. Inconsiderate to someone who spend so long trying to solve this.

[fringe pawn]

so in summary, all is good

all is zen lol

[fair patio]

Yes, I need to step away from that name

😂, I uh. Did take that name as a reminder though. What I aspire to be. Not what I am.

Cause it's arrogant. But yes enough bout us!

Project.

[pine agate]

When will you guys get married?

🫡

[green ember]

Shielded Bromance

guys, just dont forget to sign a prenup

[pine agate]

I hope that Namada will announce the final results before the wedding of @fringe pawn and @fair patio takes place, or preferably before the first child is born. (As both matters are in great need of money)

❤️ 🙏

[fair patio]

😂 Damn, apologies @fringe pawn, seems like we're gonna need to endure a period of bromance jokes. I wonder what Rigorous is gonna say cause that dude notorious for his jokes 😂😭. Do not tag him!!!

[pine agate]

We've been through very stressful times, even sleeping only a few hours a day. Right now, I think we should "play around" just a bit. No offense intended to anyone, thank you all for being here, see you in another Hackathon 🧑‍💻 🫡

[fair patio]

Hehe, for sure! Liking it, lifts the spirit up!

I'm a big fan of Robin Williams, he was amazing when it came to making light of situations haha. Not to take everything too, too serious.

[pine agate]

The funniest quote I've ever heard from Robin Williams is:|| “I had sex with a prostitute when I was 21. I was so bad, she gave me a refund.”||

lol

[pine agate]

Perhaps it's better to keep it hidden, sometimes it's not appropriate. Open and see if you also know Robin Williams

[fair patio]

I heard it in his good morning Vietnam voice

[trail magnet]

Is there any way we can see the current status of (un)validated class S ?

[fringe pawn]

WIP sheet?

or wip tab in the sheet rather

[trail magnet]

I have a ||(insert adjective)|| question, is it possible to submit a new task for this category? With the original specs enforced, leave us 1 month, and it will definitely solve the who's first problem. We would need, a person from the team answering to us, because I asked many times, but got almost no answers, I even asked you @potent bronze to relay my messages. And I stopped my efforts when I had my class S validated by another mean... I was really going to try it. I think it may be beneficial for everyone, the team and the person improving the code, it's a bit sad otherwise, because I think it will stay a blank category with no valid submission. To me it's an interesting proposition that is in the philosophy of the original blog post.. (that nobody did get) Or propose another solution because people had work on this, had they S validated, and stay in the top 10 for 2 months, and then may even not be rewarded at all. I was really shy to post S class at the beggining because, it was written, "you will get ban, if you post garbage", but no one did get ban, as I know of, and then validations as flooded from everywhere, so the competitor adjusted themselves to the difficulty. I don't understand what "error" they did. I don't want to steal ROID and I understood that the team really did want help on this(masp/note slowlish) and didn't get what they wanted, at the end everyone is loosing. Maybe we could end it another way, I'm sure people are tired, but I'm sure people are skillfull, and still a bit motivated, with a big knowledge of Namada now. I was thinking, if only I could go back, so I ask, ok, can we go back for another round ? I (and surely others) will really try to do it, if you let us, I'm all ears.

[stiff adder]

The team is finalising the SE results and wants to fully focus on the mainnet launch, no way another more month for the SE, it was supposed to last 3 weeks and finally almost 2.5 months

[rigid crag]

If you find bugs like examples in the blog post or improve the algoritm of namada. I am sure you would be rewarded anytime you can do this. Continuing the SE is the worst thing I can imagine

[trail magnet]

I'll just do one reply because debating is a waste of time to me, the team doesn't really have a choice, someone has to fix the masp, the whole shielded part is unusable as it is, it's just too slow. Road to mainnet go through improving masp, no matter who does it, I've said everything I had to. No need for another flame war.

[fair patio]

Very true. It's indeed a problem if the main "selling" point of a chain isn't performing as well as it should.

I'm not sure what the current state is, cause I heard fraccaman speak about big changes that were going to be made. Where they'd focus on how ZCash does it. But this is something I heard in a validator circle before the end of SE.

I do believe that in every creative process there has to be a time for hardcore in house testing and experimenting with different approaches. We might get in the way if it's not coordinated well.

SE was like a separate development track, which made it easier to keep potential ideas or implementations set apart from mainnet. So there's somewhat an order to be maintained and it does require some organizing/coordinating to not let us either do unnecessary work, conflict with code etc.

Perhaps Housefire could be meaningful in this aspect, cause this is planned to return.

[young hearth]

but they said in previous call, that they are planning some more short testnet before mainnet (after SE is finished)

[stiff adder]

Yes, in the last call they mentioned they have some internal testnet ongoing, more upcoming and new releases already completed after SE ended

[potent bronze]

@trail magnet if you've followed the devs github activities and are not seeing progress on something that you think would be helpful, probably Housefire 🏚️🔥 will be the place to do it

[potent bronze]

update:

• evals by eng team are done, we have security vulnerability emails
• S Class is getting a final review, ideally to post tomorrow

[stiff adder]

Thanks for the update Gavin! Any chance to let us know if your prediction was accurate that probably no 'Building protocol and cryptography improvement' would be approved? Or any approximate range of vulnerabilities approved like 1-5, or 5-10 for example?

[dry heart]

any news guys?

[mild badge]

#1230547749603377273 message

[icy pond]

final-results for S-Class not today, right?

[potent bronze]

update:

S Class not released yet because we're removing a few clusters of scaled Sybil accounts

feeling good that we'll have this done by tomorrow. putting in long hours, since this seems the best way to have the same kind of outcome as expanding the set of Crew winners

[young hearth]

what about Pilots?

[astral fern]

👆

[crisp tree]

How many hours from now should we be looking?

[covert garden]

"feeling good that we'll have this done by tomorrow." 😉

Good Luck for that ! 😅
Final results should take some more time.

[mild badge]

adv congratulations 🥳

[tired moss]

Eat sleep check announcement repeat

[rigid crag]

Did you get to the top 100 after update?

[tired moss]

Which update

4-19.?

[rigid crag]

Some points changed yesterday I think

[tired moss]

Ohhh haven't checked

Lol lost some roids 🥲

[fringe pawn]

are points updates reflected on extended nebb too or only real nebb?

[tired moss]

I see on real nebb

[rigid crag]

Both

[gilded dome]

@rigid crag I don't see any changes in crew leaderboard. Did it change too?

[regal quartz]

It changed yesterday bro

[low token]

Same here. Seems they have adjusted the shielded tasks

[low token]

It changed. Your position might not change but your roids might

[icy pond]

wen wen, today?

[regal quartz]

New Year's Eve is approaching

[woven gull]

Hi Gavin, is there any new information?

[crisp tree]

This is called waiting damn. I'm tired lol

[icy pond]

Not today again

[icy pond]

any updates for today?

[potent bronze]

i think we can probably release S Class list before removing the sybils

i want to remove sybils after the weekend so we're online, in case fires break out

[icy pond]

that is, to expect results today?

[rigid crag]

How many sybils approximately we had?

[supple prawn]

so when

[crisp tree]

Release already

[rapid sparrow]

Did you mean we can't?

[low token]

Maybe release the list of identified sybils

[knotty lion]

🙌

[dry flicker]

That way people can start speculating on the leaderboard (minus the Sybils)

[rigid crag]

I think we shouldn't be worry about this. Publish final results and people who considered as sybils have time to request for reevaluation.

[low token]

I support this motion

[astral fern]

I think that being a sybil should be based on preponderance of the evidence and be final. You cant bump people from the winners list 3 weeks after the fact because one of the people you marked as sybil appealed successfully.

[rigid crag]

@slender wave what does recommend bounty mean?

Do we have a new category?

What does other mean in this category?

[oak fox]

@potent bronze Excuse me, but this is a high severe security vulnerability capabale to heavily harm the project in case of being in production.

https://github.com/anoma/namada/issues/2985

"A way to lock/freeze assets by freezing an IBC client - which makes them unusable until the related code is fixed (i.e. ibc-rs) and chain upgraded in order to be able to avoid freeze behaviour (0.51 ibc-rs) as well as updating frozen/expired IBC clients for new ones (0.52 ibc-rs) to finally unlock/unfreeze those assets"

Also, how come a core protocol improvement like adding the validator alias to be part of the validator metadata isn't considered a protocol improvement?

[oak fox]

@pulsar basalt @plucky inlet @elfin oxide

[fathom hawk]

@potent bronze 🔅 I worked on my security finding ALONE for DAYS without checking with any one and without checking any other submission . and tested the security issue ( DoS ) and verified it and sent PoC to the team . But in the xls sheet i got this
DoS issue but already reported
. .. All security finding was hidden and sent to the team and NO One would know which finding had been identified . IF i know that it had been finded by someone elese I would NOT work on it and tried to find another 1 .. ..So To make it fair all Security finding ( if proven ) should be approved for rewards because submission and results was hidden all the time . again IF team hint that for example ( DoS found in IBC ) had been identified that would make all other ppl who try to exploit IBC transferer would stop and try something else . But with this way . it not fair . And we are not talking about block explorer which can be cloned and had been cloned . we are talking about something few ppl can work on it

[fathom hawk]

@plucky inlet @elfin oxide

[gaunt gull]

agree with you

[gaunt gull]

waiting for response

🤔

[narrow fable]

It might be because there were already several submissions related to the same problem. Or perhaps the same problem was reported before yours.

[fathom hawk]

Did the xls sheet show where exactly is this DoS . plus i sent full PoC . not just saying IBC has a DoS!

Also the xls sheet didnot show if that DoS ( For others ) had been approved or not . So still legit to submit mine

[gaunt gull]

can we public all s6 already approved? I want to see it

[rigid crag]

In crew just one could get yes in finding security category

[fathom hawk]

Also i checked now all security issues and No ONE SAID DoS on IBC . No one declare exactly where his exploit targeted and for which part . so your point is not valid

[gaunt gull]

I haven't checked it all yet

[supple prawn]

Only vulnerabilities in the Namada protocol are rewarded

[gaunt gull]

cool bro @supple prawn you got it

[fathom hawk]

its not what they comment in the xls sheet . if it had been reported and used it as excuse not to reward others then it had been approved . . plus my PoC was for the way that namada handle the IBC .

[supple prawn]

thanks

[fathom hawk]

no need to say more

[supple prawn]

what is s6

[gaunt gull]

I mean security vulnerabilities

[supple prawn]

ah got it

even having an approved vulnerability submission will not be able to absorb the damage of C and B class missions. what a tragedy

[gaunt gull]

what is your security vulnerabilities bro?

[supple prawn]

🥹 #shielded-expedition message

[gaunt gull]

is the via rpc?

[supple prawn]

yes it was possible to trigger with rpc

but it was probably an error that the core software could trigger itself at any time

[gaunt gull]

mine was trigger via RPC with validator path query

[sudden burrow]

wondering also, how is it possible to know who posted what.
and how one proved DoS is not a security issue and another DoS issue is a security one
any DoS is a problem

[gaunt gull]

but someone reported before me so it was rejected

[fathom hawk]

100% agree with you