**unclear rules in Shielded Expedition**

[sudden burrow]

so, the fact I could kill any open rpc is not a security problem seems 😄

ok, let's have a leaderboard and finish this

[oak fox]

No, my friend, this is not the end, I assure you that

Judging by my whole submissions, not being in the top 1 is really... unbelievable?

[sudden burrow]

taking into account I am not even in shielded-100, wondering if I could stay in top-50 even 😄 despite sitting on 12th atm

[supple prawn]

shielded-100 was 10 steps ahead for A/B class missions

[fathom hawk]

would be #1

[sudden burrow]

from the back 😄

[oak fox]

Plus a brilliant uptime performance and governance participation. Where is the hidden camera?

[stable oar]

Oh, after sitting at #1 for weeks I am not even sure I am in the top 200

Well it is the friends we made along the way that counts

[gaunt gull]

bro you in 25 mate, sure

we have 4 approved security vulnerabilities submissions in pilot

[fair patio]

@potent bronze @slender wave

Just wanna mention one thing that's a bit unfortunate due to these changes. I don't expect to get my submission (450) approved now, but wanted to share this.

I had a very, like really early attempt to improve MASP. If I'm not mistaken it was the first submission for this. It contained ideas worth exploring (and I know others did explore upon it further). It also gave way for this type of submission of "brainstorming" MASP ideas; some literally reused that word in their submissions, thus, (perhaps a leap) it did become for some an example in some way.

The crappy thing is that the submission was awaiting for eval for the whole of SE. It got rejected after the end, saying it needed more elaboration. Which was fair, since now it lacked detail if we compared it with all the other submissions that followed for the two months ahead.

This submission dated back from February. I didn't improve upon this submission nor put haste behind its evaluation due to getting something else accepted for the improve protocol category already. Ofcourse this one also got rejected due to the changes.

If I knew of this I would have put more care behind this submission instead. Put haste behind its evaluation and improved upon it.

Having been the first had downsides. Others can one up you, use your ideas, you don't have a template or example to work with, your submission becomes outdated or falls short in comparison and it having been evaluated that late didn't help either.

Just wanted to say this, cause if I knew of all this earlier on it would have altered my game plan.

[oak fox]

This is a high severe security vulnerability, so... wait

[sudden burrow]

heh, still looking at the results and can't understand how one DoS is a security problem and another DoS is not 😄 can someone explain?

[fair patio]

I'm reading this back, the start sounds like I am saying I started something. But damn don't mean it like that lol. Just wanna explain how being early had many downsides for me.

[dry flicker]

Seems like you're one of the few who got a "security" validated though 🙂

[supple prawn]

from yito:

Thank you so much for your reporting and investigation. They're super helpful. It's caused by ibc-rs' bug ibc-rs/#1080 (It was fixed in v0.51.0). (9 Feb)

just sayin

[oak fox]

It was fixed in the ibc-rs repo, not in Namada

[dry heart]

easy to pass s5 with chat GPT 🤣

[oak fox]

Hey, again, where are the hidden cameras guys?

I mean...

[gaunt gull]

let's me explain to you bro :))

[supple prawn]

Only vulnerabilities in the Namada protocol are rewarded

[gaunt gull]

I see 4 mate

[oak fox]

Could you please stop throwing nonsensical conclusions? It's a high severe security vulnerability that affects both IBC protocol and Namada protocol indirectly.

[fair patio]

Yeah...many got theirs rejected I see. Which one was yours?

The IBC field address fire emoji wildness was that one. I also know others started to search for fields that weren't limited or started to search for places to apply sanitization afterwards.

Though, honestly I had a video ready to show if mine got rejected. Cause I heard this is an attack that has been done in Cosmos already in the past. Gadikian posted recently a video on it explaining how it can stop a chain.

[dry heart]

I'm quite disappointed, bye guys

[dry flicker]

Does it really matter anymore?
I'm so disappointed by all of this, I think I'm just gonna go to sleep

[supple prawn]

actually it doesn't

[fair patio]

Though btw my mail didn't just speak of that field. I told in the mail that it might be a good practice to go through the whole CLI and check where field limitation or checks could get applied.

[oak fox]

Of course, it is

Are you a security auditor?

[fair patio]

I'm sorry man. I'm still heavily against this decision cause it messed with our game plans.

Perhaps those who land top could actually be considerate and think of sharing a portion of their prizes with those afflicted.

I'm down for this, but I don't know where I'll land.

[dry flicker]

🤷
At least, that will protect you from the shield-100 pile of points that's coming from all the B and C class

[fair patio]

Hm, that is true...I hope that doesn't impact too much (due to oversaturation)

[fair patio]

How much you got accepted? 4?

[dry flicker]

I think so yeah

[potent bronze]

hi everyone
i know that there's a lot of disappointment. pls lmk if something doesn't make sense, keeping in mind how we have defined the previously-undefined "security vulnerability" category, as well as the previously-undefined "protocol building" category

[fair patio]

What are these bounty rewards? I see stuff like bounty rewards, bounty rewards+ and bounty rewards x3.

[gaunt gull]

I got x4 but I dont understand what is it?

[supple prawn]

will you publish a list of outstanding sumbissions?

[fathom hawk]

mine was commented with this ```DoS issue but already reported

```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 ```

[fair patio]

Ohhh x4 even

[stable oar]

4 bounties

[supple prawn]

there are some x7s

[stable oar]

One for each issue

[potent bronze]

there were helpful submissions that don't fit into a category, i think we'd like to propose some bounties

[stiff adder]

@potent bronze on Monday it would be nice to clarify for C v2 if as quickly as possible means first block signed which has to be. This could be important for the ranking so should be urgently clarified. Furthemore, it should be detailed how many pilots had over 99% uptime and the governance participation too. S class are more clear now, but for B/C transparency is lacking considerably. In particular, I've been asking about C v2 for a long time and still it is not clarified, thanks Gavin

[sudden burrow]

wondering if those bounties can cover reduced roids that could help ppl to get much higher in the list...

[potent bronze]

we're also going to propose recognizing high quality submissions, like shielded apps and other apps

[sudden burrow]

e.g. I can't understand how from two real DoS one is security and another one is not security.
DoS is by definition a denial of service, so if the node was down due to that it is a security, isn't it?

[prisma meteor]

We have top 1 Pilot @tawdry jetty =]]

[astral fern]

Guys, I cant figure out one thing, have sybils already been culled?

[potent bronze]

it could have been a duplicate submission
was it the ABCI query DoS issue?

[oak fox]

@potent bronze

[potent bronze]

not yet
waiting until after weekend to post

[sudden burrow]

yes, queries, but 1) it is marked as not a security; 2) as @fathom hawk said, how everyone could know who submitted what?

[oak fox]

I'm still searching for the hidden cameras

[potent bronze]

DM me your tpknam?

[fathom hawk]

@potent bronze can you please comment on this ?

[potent bronze]

i'm seeing comment "ibc frozen client issue, already covered in author's other submission"

[oak fox]

That's not correct at all

[potent bronze]

DM me your tpknam?

[oak fox]

Also, I have also informed internally almost two months ago about this behaviour

[astral fern]

@potent bronze whenever you can 🙂 👆

[potent bronze]

#1230547749603377273 message

[astral fern]

Much appreciated @potent bronze 😄 😄 🙂

[potent bronze]

maybe there's a mistake, i'll look into it

[fair patio]

This is true (in our rescue crew chat)

[stiff adder]

Let's make things simple. The top 5 pilots is from 2 approved protocol improvements and 4 approved vulnerabilities submissions decided AFTER introducing some auditing AFTER the SE ended, is this fair? I doubt it. But apart from this, the rest of S class tasks on the excel seem more or less clear. But for C/B categories there are still ambiguities and lack of clarity about certain tasks so hope this is all clarified ASAP

[potent bronze]

thought i clarified this, one sec

[stiff adder]

No, there wasn't any reply yet

And no reply also about uptime or governance, like how many pilots got over 99,%, 95% etc.

[dry flicker]

I think it was never specified if "add quickly as possible means 1st block, or in the 5 first block for instance"

[oak fox]

Also, please take a look at:

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?

Judging by my whole submissions, not being in the top 1 is really... unbelievable and even insulting (?)? Plus a brilliant uptime performance and governance participation

[prisma meteor]

But, How to know you already copy the issue from another one 😄

[stiff adder]

As quickly as possible means first block, do you know something quicker?

[prisma meteor]

I think only accept the first submission is fair 😄

[fathom hawk]

There is no info about security fidning in the xls sheet . only found DoS . where exactly no one knows . plus i already sent PoC

[fair patio]

Which DoS?

[prisma meteor]

But You can copy from another group in discord, telegram, or your friend already submited 😄

[fair patio]

I hope not related to mine right? Cause I kinda made that one too apparent 😂...

[sudden burrow]

ok, how do you know who submitted what? the factor of closed info kills the factor of the order

[fathom hawk]

is it public ? No . ppl will not share . are you accusing me !?

[fair patio]

(field limits). Did it via IBC.

[potent bronze]

hmm can't find it for some reason 🤔
my recollection is that devs told me "first 5 blocks"

still looking tho, just to make sure

[prisma meteor]

I have no idea. Maybe yes or No. But only accept the first submission

[stiff adder]

so why it wasnt written 5 blocks in the blogpost but as quickly as possible? Suspicious, rules should be clear from beginning not made up at the end of SE

[fathom hawk]

I think you didnot got the point yet so re read it here #1230547749603377273 message .PS I will not waste my time involving into this with you .

100% supporting you .

[prisma meteor]

Just copy and get Roids. Lol 😄

[sudden burrow]

copy what? "I found a security vulnerability and sent it by email"? 🤣

[fathom hawk]

he think we all have a group to share the finding and then submit it LOL

ahuh this is really waste of time

[sudden burrow]

no one like trolls...

[potent bronze]

i agree, unfortunately i didn't make the game

DM me tpknam?

[potent bronze]

ease up

he's pointing out that one may copy/share one's security submission if multiples of the same disclosure are accepted

[fathom hawk]

I think he means that if hades found security he submit then share it with me so i can submit same one . which is nonsense

[potent bronze]

nah

[fathom hawk]

I was working for this for days trying to fuzz with lots of ways

[potent bronze]

he's pointing out the flaw with accepting multiples of single security submission

[fathom hawk]

Ok

[potent bronze]

this is the flaw tho

@fathom hawk comment from the reviewer is written "Could be a serious DoS issue, but has been reported already. 2/5 points."

i can look to see what the duplicate is and when it was submitted

@fathom hawk apologies

you were right, he is trolling you

i'm sorry

[fathom hawk]

Its ok . np . let him troll

[dry heart]

he troll everyone 😂

[potent bronze]

he's got the appropriate role for it 😉

[stiff adder]

Ok, but in this case given the ambiguity I assume it should be clarified with the logic of what is written right? Becuase 'as quickly as possible' means to sign the first block, this is what it is as quickly as possible, not the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th block I assume, signing the 5th block is not as quickly as possible after the upgrade height

[prisma meteor]

Lol 😛

[oak fox]

Plus a custom built indexer better than Namadexer, i.e. Undexer, which stills being developed/improved as we talk in order to become one of the main Namada indexers.

Plus an improved Borsh library. Thanks to this extensible architecture, Borshest also provides support for Zcash encoding, which is used alongside Borsh in the Namada API. It serves for decoding transactions in JS in the front end without having to go through Rust/WASM.
https://github.com/hackbg/toolbox/tree/main/borshest

C'mon...

[potent bronze]

the category isn't "protocol improvement," it's "protocol building"

[stiff adder]

Gavin, in the current nebb you say all C/B/A points are added and not going to be changed? this includes, uptime, governance, C v2, all C, B , A tasks?

[oak fox]

"Building protocol and cryprographty improvements". That one is a core protocol improvement

[potent bronze]

just wanna be clear, i think Daniel's work seems amazing, and it's crazy that the competition doesn't have a meaningful way to recognize the quality of submissions

we'll propose recognizing quality submissions outside of the competition, but i'm not sure what else to do

[potent bronze]

1. building protocol and
2. cryptography improvements

[fair patio]

It seems that the true lesson we all learn here is that quality should matter.

[oak fox]

Then it falls to 1)

[potent bronze]

it shouldn't need to be learned

[fair patio]

Yeah more like a reminder this has become.

[potent bronze]

it fails #1

[stable oar]

The Shielded Expedition was supposed to run for approximately 2 weeks - barring unforeseen events, that happened - which favored quantity over quality as a strategy.

[potent bronze]

i didn't say anything about that

@stiff adder see pinned

[oak fox]

"Building protocol", isn't a core protocol improvement that's key for explorers, dashboards, stats, etc. a building protocol task?

[stiff adder]

You said here @potent bronze 'ostensibly everything but S Class is in the Nebb'

[potent bronze]

compare the magnitude of these examples with adding a moniker field

[oak fox]

These are examples, just that

What matters here is the category denomination

It's not just adding a "moniker field". If it was just that, why no one thought about in the whole SE?

[dry heart]

I think it's just an example, there should be more than that, human creativity cannot be stopped 🤔

[stable oar]

There is a pattern in the examples that sets it apart from UX/UI improvements

[oak fox]

This qualifies in the b) option

[stable oar]

More like things that would be in a whitepaper

[oak fox]

In the pinned message you are pointing out

[fair patio]

This is very true actually yeah, another reason why this change post comp sucks big time.

[potent bronze]

we still need to make a proposal to deal with the asymmetry in competition for maintaining uptime

[oak fox]

Practically or matematically

OR

[dry heart]

I saw that 3 passed submissions were generated from GPT chat, but the submissions that had PR on Github and were really valuable were changed to the Other category.

[fair patio]

Tried to keep creating quality submissions but tactic and focus became more spread out. To try and get one approved.

[fair patio]

Will there be any leniency towards those afflicted by this change in evaluation?

Like still give a portion of ROIDs cause of having thought to be approved? (cause just thinking to have one approved, affected one's decisions in the competition).

Or will those just be dimished to not having had a qualification at all?

[oak fox]

Thanks for your words, Gavin, but casually today is my birthday and to be honest I don't even feel like getting out of bed for days because of this. It's a flagrant insult to a dedicated long term contributor that been here for more than a year without any monetary expectation when this only was a ghost town.

[fair patio]

Damn, happy birthday dude

[stiff adder]

The assymetry introduced by Heliax/Anoma foundation/Knowable by choosing the SE-100 pilots?

[oak fox]

Thanks bud

[fair patio]

Keep spirit high bruh, you're destined for greatness

[fathom hawk]

Oh Happy birthday brother . 🎂

[potent bronze]

i can see why you feel this way
(feels dumb to say in light of things, but) happy birthday, i hope this doesn't ruin your resolve

[potent bronze]

there were a few asymmetries that i saw, probably the biggest two were the unjailing bug and the disproportionate amount of NAAN

[fair patio]

Can we get like an ask publicly to everyone to have the option to share some of their NAM for [fill whatever reason in here] they win with others?

[stiff adder]

But the unjailing bug is IRRELEVANT, with or without bug, after jailed in few epochs not possible already to get 99% uptime

[potent bronze]

hands down you've been the most dedicated, from what i can see
if the contest fails to reward your work, then there are other ways (like you crushed it in the Community Builders Program, if i recall)

[potent bronze]

wdym?

[potent bronze]

this seems like a bad idea

[stiff adder]

The amount of NAAN was more for the SE-100 pilots, why is this being questioned as an asymmetry?🤦‍♂️

[potent bronze]

wdym? it seems like an asymmetry to me

[stiff adder]

Gavin, imagine there was no unjailing bug, those who got jailed had to be jailed for certain amount of time right, so even if there was not bug, they already couldnt get 99% uptime and the points in this category, so there is no debate for uptime, jailing bug irrelevant, if jailed cant get 99% uptime already, no debate about jailing bug needed

[potent bronze]

can't get 99% uptime because not enough NAAN compared to SE100, correct?

[stiff adder]

Ok, but this is because Anoma foundation/heliax decided to give more NAAN to the selected SE-100, if there was 0 advantage for SE-100 pilots, why do any selection in the first place for SE-100? no selection and just give same NAAN to all applications?

[potent bronze]

this was a design flaw, imo

[stiff adder]

No, because they got jailed

[potent bronze]

tbh i'm lost

[fair patio]

Hmm, I can understand that.

Reason I said this is cause of finding it unfair towards those who had amazing submissions. But yeah, I do see how chaotic this will be. And I shouldn't get started about the administrative difficulty of this all.

But yeah there's already the plan to also award those already.

Outside SE. Nvm haha.

[stiff adder]

Maybe but it was decided like that, are we going to change all now after SE ended? About the uptime, if a validator gets jailed not possible already to get 99% uptime, it doesnt matter there was unjailing bug or not, even no bug and can unjailed after jail period still cannot get 99% uptime

[fair patio]

I think those who used the change consensus key command missed already too many blocks to get 99%

[stiff adder]

But many managed to achieve 99% uptime right?

[fathom hawk]

had to create another validator to test that using my pkey 🙂

[fair patio]

Reason I say this is to say that in a sense that whole 99% was super difficult if you attempted to also do all sorts of different transactions

[fair patio]

That's smart!

Genie alert

[fathom hawk]

😂 its almost 6 am here cant see what you type lol

[stiff adder]

Many did many transactions and still got 99%, this should be rewarded, not penalized those who got 99% becuase others couldnt, this is a competition

[fair patio]

@fringe pawn has a list of post validators uptime btw

[potent bronze]

can someone help me to understand Hector's concern? i may be too tired to follow

[fair patio]

I think I did see one or two at 99%, but I don't think they got jailed, also I kinda suspect they had more info at the start of SE.

I think Hector worries about the uptime task becoming too lenient for post? Resulting in saturating that category?

Correct me if wrong @stiff adder

[prisma meteor]

It's time to say congrats to @tawdry jetty 😛

[fair patio]

Haha, 6 out of 6? I didn't check, only person?

Congrats then!

[left rover]

Take a rest. Make a pin like: for S4 and S5, dm me your public key and you will check it and talk to eng team.

[stiff adder]

I mean, concern about uptime is the unjailing bug. I say, there is no debate for uptime because even if there wasnt unjailing bug and validator could unjail normally, they still couldnt get 99% uptime because of the jail time and we are of course talking here donwtime jail, not double sign jailed

[potent bronze]

the tension i see is that 1) there are people who did all kinds of stuff to make sure they maintained uptime and 2) there are dozens of validators that were jailed by a bug for four weeks and 3) there are validator operators that didn't have access to SE100 comms, and were excluded from coordination (thus had no idea when the chain was coming back online or how to prep their validator) and 4) i need to verify the calculation, but i recall being told that uptime was: your_signed_blocks / all_blocks_made (and idk how you could get the uptime unless you had the NAAN to be in the active set the entire time)

[stiff adder]

you are 3rd also congrats, top 5 is known already, and top 10 almost too

[fair patio]

I think 99% for post was already super hard due to at the beginning only SE 100 knowing of chain restarts etc.

I think this is more so about the 95% uptime one.

[fair patio]

How so?

[potent bronze]

did you know about the bug that randomly restarted the node repeatedly?

[prisma meteor]

Yes 6/6 😄

[stiff adder]

bro s6 approved, only 4 s6 approved and 2 s5 approved, I already know top 5 it is obvious, and top 10 almost too, 7 clear for the bottom of top 10. Other in top 5 are spidey, hkey namadaguru

[prisma meteor]

In Crew Two guys got top 1 ,2 with task S5 and S6 😄

[green ember]

is uptime on the Nebb is correct now?

[prisma meteor]

Congrats @tired moss

[potent bronze]

we're still awaiting raw score data and the code, should probably be independently verified

[fair patio]

I see...sorry on phone, didn't see that much.

[potent bronze]

i've heard people saying that they think it's incorrect

[fathom hawk]

what field?

[fair patio]

Was the address field, but what I send in stated that field limits in general were a problem. I only showed it via that IBC "attack".

Field limits and just checks in general for them*

[fathom hawk]

Mine is in IBC but different than yours

and in general yes IBC had some of those

[fair patio]

I don't want to jump to this conclusion just yet, people may get approvals still (?) if valid. I dunno if it's final, final.

Thanks though man ❤️ (for congratulating).

[green ember]

because based on file on github my validator which was post genesis had 341000 signatures which before reduction of first two epochs would be at least 96 percent. without first 2 epochs about 99 percent

[potent bronze]

i'm going to put slow mode on this thread bc 1) i don't want heated debate happening and 2) i don't want important msgs getting buried

i know that this has been stressful and rollercoaster

i know that there are plenty of people on the losing side of the trade-offs we've had to make. it sucks, i'm sorry if you landed on the losing side. if you have done great stuff, we cannot leave it that way

[oak fox]

I think this must be addressed not out of SE scope (beyond the "bounty" thing). This is not the CB program. I know I have played the cards very well and I won by far, providing meaningful and outstanding contributions. This is really discouraging

[fair patio]

Hey Gavin, do you know whether they'll ignore the first two epochs for post genesis uptime calculation? (due to no post pilot being able to be active then). Pretoro's calculations were made based on this (imo fair) assumption.

[green ember]

regardless of the results, this has been fantstic learning experience for me. I had no idea I could make a shielded application or customize Hermes in anyways I want. I've seen so many talents here, saw amazing works on explorers. really inspiring for me

[frail nova]

As far as I see, all indexer tasks will be deleted if rpc is executed, right sir?

[prisma meteor]

fn main() {
// Example data
let data = vec![
b"Hello".to_vec(),
b"world".to_vec(),
b"OpenAI".to_vec(),
b"Rust".to_vec(),
];

// Create a Merkle tree from the data
let merkle_tree = MerkleTree::new(data.clone());

// Print the root hash of the Merkle tree
println!("Root hash: {:x?}", merkle_tree.root_hash());
}

This guy just use chatGPT and got approve @potent bronze @slender wave

[pine agate]

🤌🤌

[frail nova]

Team, please check row #521 in Crew Result sheet, which is the Building Protocol task, why was it approved as “yes” while other individuals received “other” for passing evaluation?

[prisma meteor]

This task should be have metrics before after can measure. Everything just assumsion.

[tired moss]

Whats wrong

[frail nova]

And when I looked at the main issue, it seemed to be created by ChatGPT. I'm pretty sure it is. I don't think it passed the final review.

[tired moss]

How many tasks did Don

[mild badge]

Hi @potent bronze @slender wave
Thanks for updating the sheet..

My rpc link has https enabled but it was mentioned as https required..

[austere rose]

I got better at javascript due to namada 🙂

[frail nova]

Who is Don?

[tired moss]

I mean how many tadk you did and got yes for them

[gilded dome]

After taking away security vulnerabilities and cryptography improvements task idk what will be the deciding factor to be in top 100 anymore.(for crew)

[austere rose]

How are we measuring uptime? I also jailed for quite sometime due to the consensus bug. I know pretoro was working on a spreadsheet to track this

[frail nova]

Dude, please review my above problem, I'm not talking about me. I am referring to another person who received a “yes” confirmation for the Building Protocol task

[tired moss]

yup but just asing about yours

[young hearth]

Just woke up 😂 Wow, not a good morning to say the least 🫣

what means Recommend Bounty + i have few of them 🥶 ???
And what means - good start, needs a little more elaboration ( can we do something on this now, so the task is accepted at the end? )

[tired moss]

Same here too

[dry heart]

If I copy from someone will I be banned?

[young hearth]

Happy birthday my friend🙌🏽 I am proud of your work, not only in SE, but overall for Namada. Our team also was fighting hard, and tried to contribute as best as we can, but we have same situation as you. What i can say....this is wild wild west of crypto. Enjoy your today and i am sure hard work pays off 🎂

[frail nova]

It can happen because there is already a copy account that has been banned

[mild badge]

kindly check dm 🙏🏼

[young hearth]

But some Pilots managed to get 99-100% uptime....if you change this task, it is also big unfairness for those who actually maintained uptime

[dry heart]

yes so I think after the sybil check a lot of thing change coming

[austere rose]

Lof of pilots faced lack of uptime due to wellknown consensus bug. So yeah, its unfair to a lot of post-genesis pilots. Tough choice as to what to do here.

[fair patio]

Hmm yeah, really difficult cause we can't ignore the fact that many did make sure to get this uptime either.

(I'm post, not pre btw. I'm just a spy in Shielded-100).

[rigid crag]

Which submission?

[sleek plover]

#2615

[young hearth]

but you cannot change all the rules post factum….then all competitiin doesnt make sense…

[austere rose]

Its a tough call man. Its the team's call imo. Lot of folks got jailed due to no fault of their own.

[young hearth]

but is it not tricky, that during competition you comolete task, you see YES, and you think ok this task completed, lets focus on next one. But when SE finishes, they decide to change rules, and now it is marked NO, and now you cannot spin the time back, and do the task differently

[spring obsidian]

Why did the team cancel the task with shielded transfers due to the fact that some of the participants could not make them after the hard fork? and in this similar situation there is no change.

[young hearth]

we can argue all day here, but it will change nothing, we dont make decisions here,

[sleek plover]

chk crew result tab. its correctly changed to NO alrdy

[sleek plover]

this is much more worse

[low token]

No it's not. Some people sold their source code to others. Personally bought a source code $1500. And now it's not eligible for roids. That's my loss

[magic gale]

you ask an ordinary user to run a RPC? and with https? really or you kidding on them? what a heck

[serene cloud]

I was unaware of that until Spork told me someone used my source, it should be banned

[low token]

It's a different matter

[crisp tree]

Many ordinary users did it

[serene cloud]

Also the explorer gang 😆 they dont even bother to change anything

[magic gale]

Show me them

[tired moss]

I see you ware to much frustrated bro I don't evwn who is validatorVN i used an open source code and yes I used he's public indexer.

[ancient crescent]

the question is: why?
because there was no assignment...

[tired moss]

Do you even know the meaning of Sybil 😂
And what is this stole I used an open source code and then design again
You should to look the explorer again before making a alligation

who is the owner

Lol i check he's get repo and the he has a different explorer
And mine was different and the open source code I used was deployed almost a year before

@serene cloud
I have not used your explorer codes at all @pulsar plover . This man is just making an falls and non sense alligation mine explorer code was open source and deploy almost a year before
@potent bronze @slender wave this @pulsar plover just making a false alligations on me

[tired moss]

Its not about the reject or approved its About the alligations and tone he used to say

[livid niche]

The shortage of NAAN is not related to uptime, as there were mostly free slots available in the active set. There were fewer than 200 active validators, although up to 257 are possible. Those who ended up in jail, even with an working exit from jail mechanism, could not achieve a 99% uptime because a validator is frozen for several epochs upon being jailed and cannot exit jail immediately (this is an working mechanic), hence they would not achieve 99% uptime. And this is correct.

[rigid crag]

does recommend bounty has any roids?

[meager steeple]

Huh? You need to be in active set 99% of 91 epochs, but if you are not pre-genesis validator you need to wait for 2 epochs to get into active set, so how do I get 99% uptime then?

[crisp tree]

I did it

[stiff adder]

Hi @slender wave please check dm when you have time, I reported a potential human error for S class points, thanks

[eager ibex]

Um, I also feel that this decision is quite unreasonable, but Knowable does indeed require it. You should check the previous announcements; there are clear explanations provided.

[serene cloud]

:)) oke dude.

[marsh drift]

Lol

[round steppe]

Hey @slender wave and @potent bronze . this 2899 submission has same issue with me. but why he only decline from one submission not all submission like me?

is this fair ?

[dry heart]

let's wait bro, everyone has a part

[round steppe]

yes i know. If they are not banned all submission from tpknam address that tag "copying code", it will big big not fair to me.

[dry heart]

they say it will happen in the next week

[cyan tusk]

Lmao

[frail nova]

Hey dude, I'm disappointed in you.

[rigid crag]

Why I don't get what happened?

[prisma meteor]

Jusst see and ban this player. Copier should get ban @potent bronze @slender wave

[frail nova]

@tired moss Why did you delete the message? A copied the source code but argued that he was right. What can make you pass the source code copying test?

[tired moss]

lol i miss type the elaborat thing thast ehy

[barren pulsar]

i didn't read previous chats, but from the screenshot my take is : someone copied his source code and even didn't delete the original author's commits

[tired moss]

and this is the original open source code is look https ://github.com/arifintahu/dexplorer this is one is deploy long ago @serene cloud

[dry heart]

you don't understand even if you copy it, it doesn't work on Namada. Namada is completely new, I tried copying it from there but it didn't work

[frail nova]

Hey dude, it has nothing to do with the source code you copied

[tired moss]

Then what

[frail nova]

@tired moss No matter what, you can’t prove that the impossible becomes possible. Because it was present before everyone's eyes. That's why we're paying attention to you. From the beginning you tried to defend what shouldn't be done in the competition, if you were truly genuine and didn't do it then you wouldn't have defended it.

[tired moss]

Why would i not defending my self if someone puting an alligations
The point is tha they saying that i copied validatorvn but i did not i also post the original open source code that i used .

[dry heart]

original source with Validatorvn author commit?

[tired moss]

Are you out of your mind. What does an open source code mean.

[serene cloud]

Git clone + chat GPT = Passed S class???

[dry heart]

are you kidding us bro? cmon man dont do that let's honest. Validatorvn use your computer and push the first commit to your github 😅

[tired moss]

And if team think that using a open source code won't allowing you to passed the task then they will reject it simple.

[stiff adder]

Hi @potent bronze, I hope on Monday we can get at least transparency for:

-Data about all A tasks and points received by each pilot from A task category
-How many pilots achieved over 95% and 99% uptime?
-How many pilots got over 90% and 99% governance?

[dry heart]

you can use open source code, but it should not have validatorvn commit, please don't tell me validatorvn is your teammate😂 .I think you have to hire a lawyer as soon as possible, your words will is evidence against you in the Namada Foundation High Court

[tired moss]

Who is saying the on who got zombie 😂
You don't even know the meaning of Sybil.

[frail nova]

Surprisingly nodefarm was banned from the competition as one of his S tasks he copied from another owner. But for you, the team only removed 1 of your S missions.

[tired moss]

Yes let the team decide

[pine agate]

Maybe from today until the final results come out, he will have a hard time sleeping well 🤧🤌

[supple prawn]

here is the list for pilots:

[ #1 ] tpknam1qpr9k2cus3suzqa0vfy5xasd96ayerk33rryn8qw5mtt2n6fw05a7997t90 | 32463911434.73121
[ #2 ] tpknam1qrflwggnn9g4wp6p8u63nvte6y7nf9xr2cwqsvltgvauxl9s4nmw7476fnl | 20745161434.73121
[ #3 ] tpknam1qz36mzdvdmxvvcpv3c36zzs5v369jauws0tzrxesuaexy0p25r5sy0jsuac | 20745161434.73121
[ #4 ] tpknam1qpall8pt60ek5zgeyxstdkhrp34rrqj67a2jrklrl9sddln0grq87nluum5 | 16220099553.543089
[ #5 ] tpknam1qp657jtd7tzkadzua0wqr6f5cewrlrah08fn7ny92vcfjuh3lcehvnspw8y | 5120161434.731209
[ #6 ] tpknam1qpayc0rxtuulknrvygcwvlhehuw2tvmxhvhxmjm8s43hxj3vdxjlv62jzcq | 5120161434.731209
[ #7 ] tpknam1qpkmgyxdvegtzutehyrwl8gnglpa3z9nvveqre8y2arsqp0vhacck08ymyl | 5120161434.731209
[ #8 ] tpknam1qpl2x9t6f9y7xyq6mzp4gkhug5d05dlsfrruykuncpvnnnmn86whyxrvqqz | 5120161434.731209
[ #9 ] tpknam1qprzf0s5vtjqg09qyymul22msekwdnqfw5sxyex2th3l3cggpt4h62ysz9z | 5120161434.731209
[ #10 ] tpknam1qq6unacxdta40q7v7e0cvzaynqzrjc2w0qfwxa7z5uwzys872z09gzg2u6v | 5120161434.731209
[ #11 ] tpknam1qqn7a44k3nek9rpulrj9ey36yqctftnlplh6tzvlxwz2puhakq58zwvluvn | 5120161434.731209
[ #12 ] tpknam1qr9236k0every8fufge6qxf239gs3hyyng0ddtk3vrg7my6v5ntpsc0cz8y | 5120161434.731209
[ #13 ] tpknam1qrj4pnajqheqwnjrvpx7hw2vu9a7nn33cv0734arwsyxk9fs8mxwwyxsllt | 5120161434.731209
[ #14 ] tpknam1qrlu4t3y8s632eq4jzhdxkt3jahcgf2wkg466ck43jscfd380x5w7tm3dhq | 5120161434.731209
[ #15 ] tpknam1qrtnsu8rgxe0txz0er370vxqpaarcpn6qvuawqesr2atqw9t8yyrvks9667 | 5120161434.731209
[ #16 ] tpknam1qp5fdx37w6pr2aqep8vngzt4z5sd4qlcux8y3ht0sxfhfk7myzqvzmpvvvu | 4899313378.194107
[ #17 ] tpknam1qr3u70ng268u5fw4wsuzwrnksexlgc4w47dtq22lzgyqhhj3ec0tq892se4 | 4745909937.725222
[ #18 ] tpknam1qp2ypn3tsg69ql5cv29358grnwjda3f6vuc7gwzn2jzmp3gapssesrw2et5 | 1213911434.7312093
[ #19 ] tpknam1qpaa6gkjjscy68dv39una68nl3347z0rxhrhqyax27g45yrvjwlgclzmpja | 1213911434.7312093
[ #20 ] tpknam1qpc4zj5z3h5swg9dynmkvc47ff2707afq5ct34jzf6kxtuwzvzayw7vmncw | 1213911434.7312093
[ #21 ] tpknam1qpfzaplgj6k00kw3ly4p7x9lxsvdeqy0wfu847xez085kwfmm650jge6dt8 | 1213911434.7312093
[ #22 ] tpknam1qpllsjggltyxqxja632z53j0qfjthtmcrdkzlezedfttkd4czvy72j0rg98 | 1213911434.7312093
[ #23 ] tpknam1qpmlecgcw9zz5qvx8xl72ds9tgewvwe7ls90csr6g9lupzcfcexlsphv3dx | 1213911434.7312093
[ #24 ] tpknam1qpmzh6jdf7wqupm2l2s4a97cd6nqrpfz30dpcg2tua64y6tqcmqp7mhnugr | 1213911434.7312093```

[fathom hawk]

does it include uptime/voting etc etc ?

[tired moss]

Nop i guess.🤔

[fathom hawk]

so what exactly its based on , Just the Xls sheet and S class? @supple prawn

what about Other classes ?

If not included then you should change here is the list for pilots: and use instead here is the list for pilots: for S class ONLY @supple prawn

[rigid crag]

I noticed you did "Building Protocol" task congrats man

[stiff adder]

This is only S tasks. There are many B/C/A points to add to this. For the top 5 yes no changes, but in that list from 5 to 15, some of the pilots had a lot more A/B/C points than others, here it is just S tasks

[fathom hawk]

exactly thats why i want him to change what he typed to make it more clear and correct @supple prawn

[tired moss]

Thanks bro but some mem are not happy with this.

[rigid crag]

You don't even need other tasks to be #1

[stiff adder]

In that list, 17 is labisque but no relayer and lower A/B/C points, 16 is stonemac but no RPC and lower A/B/C points. Then there are 11 pilots with 4 S class approved. But here there are 4 pilots with lower B/C/A points according to current nebb nodevalidator, itrocket, lankou, validatorade, meaning that the rest of the 5 spots of the top 10 is between 7 pilots, mandragora and encipher higher A/B/C points so likely in top 10, and the last 3 spots of top 10 between lovd, cosmic, emberstake, 2pilot and stakepool

[dry heart]

wen unban @round steppe ?

[fathom hawk]

There are still some decisions being waited based on yesterday discussion for some S class security submission . So lets wait and see .Thanks for these info

[stiff adder]

Hmm but in the announcement it is mentioned grace period is only for human errors, not to appeal submissions?

[fathom hawk]

I think you didn't follow yesterday discussion here . you may scroll up and take a look

[tired moss]

Tbh im totally demoralised now.🥲

[young hearth]

@potent bronze where we should write about our appeal ? I think there is error in the docs .

[tired moss]

Ahhhh i see you only have one work to drag me down. 😅

[knotty lion]

🧐

[tired moss]

Does the team disclose the A class task.?

[stiff adder]

Yes, they will share files with all raw data and code to calculate the points, so yes they said we will have this information also, this and data about uptime etc. should be shared early next week before the end of grace period and of course before final results

[tired moss]

Means if there any mis calculation we can revise it before grace period end

[stiff adder]

And talking about transparency, let's also say this. It should be disclosed which devs exactly evaluated the vulnerabilities and protocol improvement submissions, and whether it was the same devs or not who did the auditing. In addition to this, it should be disclosed any conflicts of interests or relations with the pilots and crew of the approved vulnerabilities and protocol improvements submissions

[smoky sapphire]

Per ann the earliest Nebb scores will be updated by next Monday ?

[fair patio]

👀.

Thank you for that list hkey.

[tired moss]

👀

[stiff adder]

haha I told you yesterday you are 3rd already, maybe 4th, between you and hkey, depends on A/B/C tasks, 1st is gnosed, 2nd spidey, and 5th namadaguru because no shielded app

[rigid crag]

Could you analyze for crew too?👀

[full mango]

Do you think the ranking will change significantly? Or will there not be much change?

[fair patio]

Yeah got it, just shouldn't have my hopes up. I know hkey done amazing stuff. More people did.

I just feel messed up knowing others had more amazing stuff.

[crisp tree]

Could you analyse Crew to 100?

[fair patio]

I just hope everything will eventually be fair, it's hard to achieve this since so many adaptations needed to be made.

Just hope we all go through one door together. There's so many amazing people in here. Let's try sticking together.

[woven gull]

It will be something like this. Provided that the table with the S class is final

TOP 1-2
KrissTTinyti
Bigbull

TOP 3- 13
Hades
Theone
monleru
tphat19919
Lucifer
SammJ
Junkio
Nobita
cadenza
subbotinvv
TerzoMillenio

[low token]

I paid for source code I didn't steal. The owner sold to me. The tasks says I'm not eligible for roads which I understand but I'm not sybil nor a fraudster lol

[left rover]

So you are piki?

[low token]

No I'm not

[sleek plover]

I hope they banning chatgpt subbmit

[frail nova]

Where do you extract this data from?

[woven gull]

It's simple) Top 1-2
KrissTTinyti - approved Finding Security Vulnerabilities
Bigbull - approved Building protocol and cryptography improvements

TOP 3 - 13
People who did Building Shielded Applications

[low token]

So the rest of us struggle for the leftover crumbs lol. I wish I a crumb

[trail magnet]

I agree with you and I understand you, HB anyway, focus on what ppl can't take away from you

[austere rose]

Happy birthday man!

[tired moss]

Happy birthday Daniel .

[mild badge]

HBD 🎁

[fringe pawn]

my personal opinion is there should be an appeals period which should go for all aspects, and after said appeals period and decisions made on basis of any appeals, the results should be finalized

[fringe pawn]

very true

[fringe pawn]

Happy birthday Daniel.

[fringe pawn]

just read the announcement and I would strongly suggest the grace period also gives the possibility of appealing approved/disapproved tasks as there do seem to be some discrepancies, and should be a possible time period to address such concerns imo.

[frail nova]

Not sure. Because bigbull is stuck with a task of copying from others

[frail nova]

LOL 😂

[fathom hawk]

@tardy shard @fair patio @supple prawn @tawdry jetty Please check your dm. Thanks

[fringe pawn]

ngl I feel kinda left out 😅

[fathom hawk]

have you been approved for security reward . if yes please dm me

[round steppe]

yes but other who did this only decline from one submission. the team is not fair to me @slender wave @potent bronze

the other want to take my place in crew leaderboard so they hate speech to me

[round steppe]

yeah its really really not fair

[sleek plover]

yes, both should be ban

[thin drum]

Yeah I don't understand why both aren't banned

[green ember]

just because you mentioned me. that rpc submission has a typo :)) I guess if I can manage to build shielded app i can handle reverse proxy and ssl. also the uptime is completely false. should be updated i think.anyways, I tied my best and will wait to see how it goes

[woven gull]

Agree. But at the moment, judging by the table, his task Building protocol and cryptography improvements is approved

[frail nova]

It's just preliminary results, dude.

[green ember]

its funny. I submitted indexer but put my explorer domain by mistake (labesd as spam LOL). then my rpc was approved and didn't resubmit indexer because was under same category. now that I saw I put http instead of https I was really pissed off of myself for these silly mistakes. anyways these are the list of my ssl corticates and I already informed team about human error

you also can check the ssl list just to be more transparent 🤣

https ://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1200867371343171707/1233999097283870801/image.png?ex=662f22b7&is=662dd137&hm=82195168ac9137facf9976d34b22b8727bd3eac2701d639256bf988d84c3739b&

[round steppe]

hahaha lmao. if not its not fair . not only piki. i see many of submission is tagged copying

[tired moss]

do you know about open source gpl 2.0 license.?

[fringe pawn]

let's be real here, uploading another project's source to git without forking it for a competition like this as if your own code is questionable, gpl or not. I understand it may not have been for any nefarious motive.

[dry heart]

Dont need to do anything mate, check Gavin's message #1230547749603377273 message

[prisma meteor]

I know you clone from @serene cloud. This is evidence. #1230547749603377273 message

[clear bridge]

so we still need to wait fro 1 week fro final points distribution. this is too much time consuming now its almost a 3 month since we start SE

[narrow fable]

I completely understand your frustration, and I know it's not your fault. It's disappointing to see how things unfolded in the end. Many of us were already eligible for activities and are now facing rejections. According to the #📣-se-announcements message the deadline doesn't allow for appeals or arguments, and I acknowledge there were many contradictions in the team's statements. However, if we continue to push on this, we may never reach a conclusion regarding the testnet.

With that said, if there is a reconsideration of your activity after a new decision, then as a matter of principle, the same treatment should be extended to anyone else who requests it. The lesson we can take from this is that appearances don't always align with reality. As mentioned earlier, focusing on things that truly belong to us is essential. I wish you an excellent day.

[dry heart]

Instructions for building Explorer:

1. git clone from other submission
2. create your repository
3. Search Google how to change the git remote url
4. git push to your repository
5. forget to delete the git tree on the old author and get a ban 🤦‍♂️

[fathom hawk]

mine could be humain err due to the fact that team may mix things up related to my security finding ,, ex IBC has lots of parts to exploit and exploiting one part doesnot mean all IBC holes had been covered .Thanks

@fair patio would you answer the dm . thanks

[fair patio]

Instructions for building explorer:

1. Start a new repo
2. Code your ass off

😂.

@cryptosj.net i will, just woke up

[clear bridge]

agree with your thoughts here after the se end team make the new rules and regulation like i see now we cant do any thing to resubmit or revise aur task here and this is not something we expect from the team.

[tired moss]

And also i see that ones dos security issue is approved and anothers not or im missing something here. 🤔

[fringe pawn]

I don't see why a grace/appeals period would not allow for the main functional thing in suchs a period which is actual appeals.

[clear bridge]

then what is the true mean of grace period here.

[fathom hawk]

even if not humain err . again Team didnot show which security finding had been submitted or will be / has approved .. and due to this any true security finding should be rewarded equal . inclduing your situation .

[dry heart]

If that was the decision of the reviewers and eng team, it would be unfair and greatly affect the rankings of both pilots and crew. you did a lot work for more than 2 months but got nothing and AI is a winner

[clear bridge]

and also team should to public the A,B,C class task raw data like who get roids for wich task

[fringe pawn]

AI submits really should be culled

[fathom hawk]

#1230547749603377273 message

[scenic sun]

I hope to conclude the SE review as soon as possible, it's already been over 3 months, this is too long. Does the latest announcement imply that incorrect submissions can still be appealed?

[stiff adder]

For the current nebb, does anybody knows how many vulnerabilities and improvements approved it is reflecting for pilots? Meaning, in current nebb how many points are vulnerabilities and improvements submissions giving to pilots? If someone knows this, then these tasks could be substracted, and since most have rpc, relayer, explorer and same C points, the difference in points would be from B and A tasks

[clear bridge]

as per the latest anouncment nop we cant

[frail nova]

Who?

[fringe pawn]

I'm still confused though, didn't you claim authorship on someone else's explorer before you changed your discord names? (not saying there's anything wrong but a little confused)

[dry heart]

he doesn't claim any explorer, his team clones their explorer into multiple accounts 🤔

[rare sparrow]

In the past, someone copied someone else's source code and got banned by Spork, but why did Piki also copy NodeValidatorVN but haven't been banned yet?

[eager ibex]

Maybe Spork hasn't noticed the issue yet.

[clear bridge]

did you guys see the namada's roadmap like wee need to wait till phase5 after tge to get hands on NAM like transfer an all

[cyan tusk]

Im tired rn 😦

[knotty lion]

😁

[crisp tree]

I think you guys should allow the person that feels hurt by someone copying his code to report and ban copier. If he doesn't report than let it be he simply won't get roids for the tasks he copied. Yall making fuse about it this much sounds like hate speeches. Some people released their codes to others and collected money. If the original owner doesn't report let them just be.

[drowsy ember]

This competition has been very unhealthy and toxic. Everybody tryna bring everybody down

[round steppe]

so tell to @slender wave and @potent bronze i also use open source code on github
why they banned all of my submission ? Fair ?

[sleek plover]

only fair to expose cheaters

[crisp tree]

If the owner complained then you guys should allow the team to work on it.

[eager ibex]

However, if community members don't point it out, the team might not even notice the issue.

[drowsy ember]

Yeah agreed but the mockery directed at both @tired moss and @round steppe isn't necessary. They're humans with emotions too. Guys should allow the team work on it.

[prisma meteor]

I never say anything about FamNode but this guy said I don't understand anything about open source at all.

[crisp tree]

True but mocking them isn't necessary they've been here putting effort just like us for the past three months. If they weren't putting in effort at all they won't bother to be here. They followed a shortcut and copied people's code without the owner's awareness which is bad as we all agree. But the way we talk about it as if we are mocking them is inhumane.

[sleek plover]

extra mile? That is shortcut, not extra mile. But I agree, let team decide

[left rover]

Just let it go and let team decide.

[crisp tree]

I also agree with you but let's not mock them or try to hurt them emotionally. At least we're all the same community. As we've reported team should do what they have to do

[pine agate]

I think this stage is even more stressful than doing SE missions. I prepared corn flakes, and enjoyed them 🗿

[fringe pawn]

yes of course that's fair. you blatantly copied someone else's tg bot. let's leave up to team what they do about other cases. not all cases are the same.

[rigid crag]

I haven't experienced such stress in my life 🥲

[low token]

Someone like me submitted a copied code but it was the owner that sold it to me. In the nebb it says I'm not eligible for roids for that task. I won't ask for refund anyways. Maybe he sold the same code to some other people too but at least I'm sure about me. Paid $1500 for it. At least I know I didn't steal even though I'm wrong.

[eager ibex]

In fact, you should ask the seller for a refund, rather than complaining about it here.

[charred hamlet]

Lol sorry man no refunds just smile😅

[fringe pawn]

maybe it wasn't the owner who sold it to you..

[prisma meteor]

I agree. But this case is the same. Owner had reported.

[low token]

There no way I can tell but I'm not complaining. But I think he's the real owner

Noo. But I'm reaching out to him

[left rover]

So which is your explorer?

[crisp tree]

It might be one of those explorer, they should be able to figure it out

[dry heart]

if he spoil the submission he can not get back his fund bro.

[low token]

He told me he would refund so I'll follow him up as calmly as possible.

[dry heart]

carefully I think he is waiting for the final result

[cyan tusk]

Hey my friend

[round steppe]

no, i make some change from the source code . not only copy and paste.
i create other s-class task from scratch, but they banned all of my task. but somepeople that copy from github not banned for all their submission.
Its really really not fair for me.

[dry heart]

this is not final result

[round steppe]

no bro, if you use public github repro its not called steal. because the owner has consciously shared the source code publicly. that its github ToS.

If the owner didnt want to share, they should make it private repo.

@slender wave @potent bronze

[low token]

You're arrogant. This is a competition before you use such a code you could have contacted the owner. Using it without his awareness is insane

[brave owl]

Yooo release the final result I think we are all online

[frail nova]

This is a competition, not a research topic. How can we accept your copying the source code?

[fringe pawn]

it's a competition and you are submitting someone else's work as your own. that's plagiarism. you also admitted to this previously. look I'm not out to get you, and we all make mistakes, but I really wouldn't keep arguing for there not to be consequences for this.

[sudden burrow]

you are totally right about usage of the open-sourced code
so, ok, take it, use it, but it will not be counted for the competition, cheers 🧐 🤣

[fringe pawn]

I have some queries I've made with different result sets that may or may not be useful for informing educated speculation on categories. would be happy to release with all disclaimers, but would like an indication from team in advance that it's ok with you guys to do so, if it is.

[marsh drift]

I see many people discovering bugs and making real improvements, but they are often labeled as bug bounty. This is just updating the documentation, not really related to technical skills

[rare sparrow]

Wow, improvement document why is it marked as Bug?

[dry heart]

bounty included improvement and bug, not only bug

[rare sparrow]

The value of fixing these docs seems minimal because if we focus on that, why bother looking for security bugs in apps?

[dry heart]

It would be best if you did not underestimate the value of documents, you will waste a lot of time knowing how to use them. Even a small mistake will bring huge trouble

[rigid crag]

Which submission in spreadsheet?

[marsh drift]

But here, we're talking about security bugs; what does that have to do with documentation?

[dry heart]

I dont think it is a security vulnerabilities, completely human error. I agree @marsh drift

[rare sparrow]

That's correct bro, it has absolutely nothing to do with the security aspect

[prisma meteor]

I see already approve with recommend bounty when he resubmit 😄 But still get approved in bug 😄

[rare sparrow]

If he resubmitted, he received a bounty, and the submitted email received a bug. It's confusing

[rigid crag]

It seems this is not a bug. Are you sure he got "yes" only for this correction

This has a huge impact in ranking. And if this is the case I am sure the team will correct it.

[rare sparrow]

Since it's a competition, we have to talk about fairness first. I think @slender wave @potent bronze will consider this carefully

[marsh drift]

I agree. People are really focused on finding security bugs, but such minor changes to docs wouldn't be fair to others

[rigid crag]

It's obvious that if what you said is the case(that seems it is) this is human error to accept.

[rare sparrow]

2890 11.04.2024 tpknam1qzkxslwew8d9kr2d0k7h5y2nzuq0ac86hugvhr7cgad688mf5xr626xxu4c Building protocol and cryptography improvements I have some PRs with improvements https://hackmd.io/@s3TfOHaHQJK_NPZrVDoc-g/HkdJ7hExA Other Recommend bounty+ docs submissions; category will change

[tired moss]

This grace period is harder then the whole SE😅

[thin drum]

It's amazing they haven't banned you from the SE given the blatant plagiarism 🤡

[tired moss]

First you should to check meaning of blatant lol 😂

[clear bridge]

Come on guys its looks like you guys have some personal gurages or hate to him like its toxicity here please have some humanity..

[cinder bloom]

@potent bronze Hello. I would like to know if there will be results today after removing sybil? Otherwise, the estimated results were supposed to be on the 22nd, a lot of time has passed) The waiting is killing.

[clear bridge]

There is no results today. And the final result and point distribution is after one from the last anouncement.

[cinder bloom]

Sorry, but I don't think you can know the truth. That's why I asked the project team.

[clear bridge]

Mebe. What i said was as per the latest SE anouncement. If there is something that I don't know then sorry.

[cinder bloom]

spork on last ann: "The Nebb scores and rankings won't be updated to reflect the S-class results until after the weekend."

[rare skiff]

“Years later at the annual SE PTSD meeting, most of us are still here.. its good to see old friends again. People still having nightmares, waking up sweating in the night… ‘My S-class!’ It feels good to share.”

[cinder bloom]

I recently woke up from a nightmare: I dreamed that my node stopped and I had to resynchronize without a snapshot, from block 0. And there were already 500,000 blocks.

[fringe pawn]

just want to weight in on those wishing for rapid results: it's a lot better to get it right than get it fast. and I really hope there will be the opportunity for appeals/objections at a stage of this

[mild badge]

is that Namada SE or another event? 😬

[crisp tree]

But the truth is that we have also tried in our waiting 😂. From 2 weeks to 3 months lol

[fringe pawn]

don't push a rapid resolution imo. won't work in your favour (pun intended :))

[versed cedar]

I hope you make it. I won't be because it went on so long. Congrats to everyone who kept going. Hopefully you're rewarded soon. ❤️

[fringe pawn]

letting it go on for that long really did do a lot of damage to many of us, in terms of placement (points dilution)

[rare skiff]

this

[fair patio]

Ola, will we get some intel from the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. today 😶‍🌫️?

[round steppe]

yeah no problem bruh i know it should not accepted, but why my other task that i created from scratch got banned. but other people who use open source code only got banned for one submission.

that i am talking is about fairness @potent bronze @slender wave

[eager ibex]

Will there be any updates today?

[frail nova]

No, the raw data will be out this weekend

[frail nova]

Don't worry, it's not time yet, let the team rest. Piki is also very arrogant.

[dry heart]

Do we need to wait another week? 3 months until now

[gilded dome]

Is this an official announcement or your opinion? I very much think there should be an announcement in a few hours

[clear bridge]

As i know yes Gavin said that the will going to publish the raw data.

[slender wave]

Submission 2615 should be marked 'no' for Protocol Improvements, this is human error (and my fault).

On Apr 23, we asked the engineering team to look at several submissions, including this one, for improving the MASP. This one was judged not to qualify, based on the feedback that it was overly general and provided no actionable solutions.

I forgot to update my working copy of the results sheet after that conversation, and so the error ended up in the final results. Sorry to the submitter for getting any hopes up.

AFAIK only one submission in the category passed review by the eng team -- #1046 by gnosed

[mild badge]

My rpc Submission was marked as No, i have pinged Gavin. is there any sheet that we need to fill for the team to review?

[slender wave]

this one was also reviewed by eng team and marked 'yes' for security vuln in the notes they provided me, but i can double check if there's human error

[rare skiff]

I would love to see a screenshot of Spork's unread DM's, I bet there's a few.. 😅

[crisp tree]

You used it t and got reported by the owner. I think its the owner you hurt that decides

[slender wave]

the notes they gave me don't have any more details, my guess would be the issue from hkey Feb 13, since they're both marked 'ABCI query DoS'

[fathom hawk]

@slender wave please check with Gavin about my security finding I already sent full details to him based on the analysis i made .

PS : my finding was completely targeting different parts of IBC command ( Memo ) which is different than Zen ( Receiver Addr ) so totally different target . Also i submit my finding on 3 march which is earlier than hkey 8-March ( if he is the one who's finding is conflicting with mine )
As i said full proof and analysis was sent to Gavin .

Thanks

[narrow fable]

I remember someone posted on SE-100 about a DoS vulnerability and also sent it to the spreadsheet.
So, many people knew about this issue and then they just sent it with slightly different parameters, which is why it wasn't accepted.

[marsh drift]

Hi @slender wave please check my DM

[meager steeple]

Where did you see it?

[fair patio]

Are we talking bout Field Limit length or format issues? Cause if so, then it would be the same as what I send; this general issue of unnecessarily allowing people to send massive transactions basically.

[prisma meteor]

I remmember hkey via rpc. Correct me if i wrong

[prisma meteor]

Agree 100%.

[low token]

Please s class to the nebb already let's see the clarifications can still continue after that right?

[stable oar]

What am I even reading you should be disqualified for not using interpunction alone you know it is hard to read when you write everything as one long sentence so just you know right?

[dry heart]

which one mate?

how you see it if it in se-100?

[meager steeple]

well well well

[left rover]

My brother, my family, my friend…

[fringe pawn]

completely agree with the rest. this is a documentation error and not a security bug in code unless I'm completely mistaken (it just looks like the source on quick glance but isn't - it's simply documentation refering to source.)

[stiff adder]

Hi @slender wave you confirmed only #1046 by gnosed is approved for Protocol improvements, however apart from 2615, also 1282 is incorrectly marked as 'Yes'

[oak fox]

Bump to make sure it doesn't get lost.

@potent bronze @slender wave 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?

Also, please take a look at:

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?

Plus a brilliant uptime performance and governance participation during whole competition.

Plus a custom built indexer better than Namadexer, i.e. Undexer, which stills being developed/improved as we talk in order to become one of the main Namada indexers.

Plus an improved Borsh library. Thanks to this extensible architecture, Borshest also provides support for Zcash encoding, which is used alongside Borsh in the Namada API. It serves for decoding transactions in JS in the front end without having to go through Rust/WASM.
https://github.com/hackbg/toolbox/tree/main/borshest

[mild badge]

@slender wave kindly check dm Sir

[austere rose]

Hi spork, sent you a message about it as well. My write up had a super detailed discussion about two algorithms I described. I also went into in depth detail about steps which can be reformulated to increase speedup. Please check and confirm. I think my submission should qualify for this category. Thanks 🙂

[oak fox]

Regarding this. This issue or a similar one has been covered in detail afterwards on an GitHub issue that has a related PR - so how come it didn't become valid? If it has a PR, it means that was firstly reported, at least in the right way, by our partner org.

It could also be seen as a core protocol improvement as well (the ABCI related one I mean), due to the fact that it contains a related PR.

https://github.com/anoma/namada/issues/2716

[dry heart]

but look like it was rejected 🥲

[narrow fable]

I agree too.

[fringe pawn]

which category would you expect this applies in?

[oak fox]

From what they were talking above, it would also be a security vulnerability (unsure if I'm missing something though). Anyway, the IBC client frozen behaviour that we also have reported it's a high severe security vulnerability

Or it could be seen as a core protocol improvement as well (the ABCI related one I mean)

It doesn't matter, what matters, imo, is who first submits in a right way the vulnerability/issue in GitHub

It has a related PR, so... 🙂

[fringe pawn]

oh, so making this query particularly on any node including someone else's would effectively freeze the node? if so, agreed it should apply as security (if first reporter). I don't agree it's protocol. too narrow imo and think protocol should also have conceptual improvement not just fix, but I'm not the final arbiter ofc. we all limited by slow mode here so can't reply as frequent as y'all:)

[dry heart]

I think they have to public approved submissions s6

[clear bridge]

@slender wave when we can expect the raw dta of A,B,C tasks

[fair patio]

Wait for Spork to answer, cause he said AFAIK, he might be wrong or forgot bout yours having been approved as well. Else...it really sucks to now get to hear this and having had false hope :(...

[oak fox]

If you want a core protocol improvement, we also have this one, no worries, my friend 🙂

https://github.com/anoma/namada/pull/2911

[stiff adder]

He didn't say he forgot about some submissions, he said 'AFAIK only one submission in the category passed review by the eng team -- #1046 by gnosed', this means if others apart from gnosed are marked 'Yes' this is an error then

[fringe pawn]

wouldn't think this one applies for magnitude, but again I'm not the one who decides, just giving my opin. the last one you mentioned should get security imo. (though there does seem to be some confusion if any pr to namada should count as protocol- I'm not going by that interpretation)

[oak fox]

Building protocol and cryptography improvements (practically OR matematically) 😄

[meager steeple]

Bruh…

[fair patio]

Let's just wait for his reaction man.

[oak fox]

Not yet. Surprisingly, right? We are still waiting for the "human error" thing to be addressed for both S5 and S6 related tasks 🙂

[fathom hawk]

@slender wave Just for the record, I find this situation to be entirely unfair. Exploiting one parameter in the command-line interface (CLI) is fundamentally different from exploiting other parameters within the same CLI command. Each parameter operates as a separate variable in memory, and addressing vulnerabilities in one parameter does not automatically rectify issues in another parameter. Each parameter requires individual attention and fixing within the codebase. Additionally, one of the parameters involves reading a file from the disk, which adds another layer of complexity.

Therefore, unless there is a specific submission with a Proof of Concept (PoC) for the IBC memo part (which matches mine precisely), it is entirely unfair to compare the two scenarios.

[slender wave]

ty, another mistake on my part

[fair patio]

Have some empathy guys, jeez.

[meager steeple]

This community became so toxic in the end… so many new faces after the end of SE and 90% are 🧌

[slender wave]

yeah, i feel really bad that i let these slip through. makes it worse finding out this way. genuinely sorry about this

[clear bridge]

Must say that zombie man was on another level on toxicines

[austere rose]

It’s all right. I feel like I am completely destroyed. But yeah, this community is definitely attacking me as if I did something bad. I supported the community and tried helping out so much during SE, but looks like folks here hate me and just want to attack me. It’s all good but I hate how this community has changed

[eager ibex]

Isn't it a good thing to have more people joining the community?

[fair patio]

It can happen spork! Was not towards you what I just slipped out. Didn't want to say that either, but it's like labisque said, it's becoming super toxic.

[meager steeple]

They are not joining, they were silent since the beginning of SE, but now just making toxic comments about others submissions :/

[austere rose]

I am not gonna fight the decision. My entry 1282 was super detailed and I outlined steps to the best of my ability. I acknowledged chatGPT yes, cause I wanted to show snippets and I am not so good with rust. I didn’t lie about it. Anyway, it’s whatever the team decides. At this point, I don’t have any energy to defend. But the response of folks here attacking my explanation is amazing. I never attack anyone, but looks like folks here think I really am so bad

[low token]

They do this to everyone. The toxicity is too high. I just wish everything ends today or sooner

[meager steeple]

Or sooner 🥶 you are too optimistic, or high again 😄

[rigid crag]

I think everything is ready and just a Nebb update is needed.

[eager ibex]

Well, indeed, but I think it ultimately comes down to an unreasonable competition format. It's the SE competition that has led to the division of the community.

[low token]

Sometimes you need to stay high to be optimistic 😅

[crisp tree]

The more impatient people become the more salty and toxic they become too. The longer we wait the more frustration it brings. I just hope we get final result soon so that people will stop attacking each other and stop trying to bring others down

[fringe pawn]

let's not rush the process

[gilded dome]

The results were supposed to be out today right? Along with the list of sybil

[mild badge]

@slender wave please check dm

[dry flicker]

People are jealous and feel betrayed because rules changed, their submission got cancelled, and they see the hope of life changing gains (the NAM rewards) evaporating. They need to lash out so they take their frustration out on anyone they can. Its like losing your first big trade and refusing to cut your losses and triggering your stop loss. So people will blame others for their own flaws.
I was extremely well ranked for the whole of SE, now if I get a 25th spot, I'll feel lucky. Trust me I know the frustration. And the desire to criticise others who were lower in the leaderboard and are now above. But I have no control, so why blame other players? there is not much I can do about it. I'm glad for those who will have their lives changed for ever. Not my time I guess.
One thing for sure : No one is after you Spidey.

[astral fern]

First well reasoned message on this topic

[rigid crag]

What beautiful words

[cinder bloom]

@potent bronze I would also like to know that we have a list of important questions for the Anoma Foundation. Have you collected these questions from our discussions, etc., when will they be answered?

[dry flicker]

Best thing I can advise : (Which I'm applying to myself)
Take time off, don't look at Namada's discord, spend time with family and appreciate life. Wether you make life changing gains or not, there will be other projects, other head rush, ... Take the good parts from the competition, stay in touch with the people you had nice/useful chats with... Sometimes it's way more useful than a big 💰 but you'll only appreciate it later

[dry flicker]

Honestly? Can't you just leave a peaceful message till tomorrow morning instead of throwing more oil on the fire ?
Please remove your message and go breath some fresh air

[austere rose]

I never mocked you or intended to mock anyone. I never attacked anyone’s submission. It’s unfortunate if you took it that way. Dunno what to tell you. Anyway, thanks for expressing your opinion. Can’t say anything anymore.

[drowsy ember]

The community is getting divided and this is because of how long this has dragged.

[rapid sparrow]

See alot of us had gone through or being in an endless debate, but i think we should just forget about it and just take the good part , i have even gone to the worst through the past weeks back from even being kick out lol :)) , but that doesn’t stop me from contacting or talking them back whom i had bad experiences here, it's just a matter of perspectives of oneself to take it. Life is good. Peace ✌️

[cinder bloom]

I don’t come here often after the expedition ends. What is your dispute?

[dry flicker]

Nothing. There was hateful stuff re-surfacing, and I kindly asked for removal

[stiff adder]

Hi @slender wave I think I found one human error and another potential one, I shared the details to verify via dm, please check asap when you have time, thanks

[fringe pawn]

human error seems to be the new word for appeal

[stiff adder]

No, because it is not about our submissions, but some potential human error which might have significant impact on the ranking if not checked and potentially fixed

[sudden burrow]

curious if it will be fixed someone gets points or loses them 🤓

[prisma meteor]

But it true. I think.

[fringe pawn]

you mean it's about someone else's submissions

[rigid crag]

@stiff adder publish it here members can discuss about

[dry flicker]

Interesting to submit a human error via DM indeed 🤔
When everyone else is doing so publicly

[sudden burrow]

#1230547749603377273 message 🤓

[supple prawn]

Hey @hkey 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

🫵🏻 🤣

[stiff adder]

How is this related? I'm reporting a potential human error, it has nothing to do with the rules of the SE. I don't think there is any consensus to accept human errors right?

[drowsy ember]

Yooo when update. I'm dying of waiting for too long

[crisp tree]

Lol I give up. Just get off the discord for some time. For your mental health

[scenic sun]

The SE ended on April 11th, and the ROIDs have not been updated since then.😂 (what I mean is the final result.)

[clear bridge]

Ohh at 27 April sporks said the final roids update is after the 1 week grace period

[low token]

From 2 weeks to 3 months how about that. I initially thought they said they're going to add s class scores to nebb or Monday or rather removing sybils. None of that was done.

[sudden burrow]

#1230547749603377273 message so, still curious? if you don't mind

[icy pond]

@potent bronze any updates for SE final results?

[fringe pawn]

this an alt acct? you only started posting 15 days ago

[rigid crag]

Emotionally damaged of waiting!

[fair patio]

https://tenor.com/view/emotional-damage-emotional-damage-meme-funny-gif-24332819

[rare skiff]

😵‍💫

[crisp tree]

😂😂

[sudden burrow]

https://tenor.com/view/boxing-tom-and-jerry-jerry-tom-punched-gif-14995820

[prisma meteor]

Silent 😄 Nothing 😄

[dry heart]

any news? 🙏

[crisp tree]

Damn still nothing?

[mild badge]

may be they will give updates on validator circle call! 🤔

[rigid crag]

Maybe they forgot us

[fringe pawn]

the more time it takes the better imo. would much rather have thoroughly accurate results

[icy pond]

@potent bronze maybe a small update because of what is happening now?

[stiff adder]

Hi @potent bronze it would be great to know if the uptime and governance points are added already in the current Nebb or not could you please check with the devs?, and also how many pilots got over 99% and 95% uptime, and 99% and 90% governance, thanks

[stiff adder]

Assuming the following: C, B, A tasks added correctly in current nebb and pool of 62.5B roid shared for pilots and crew for S task. Pool is shared because otherwise top 4 crew in current nebb would have over 20B roid no 6B, since only around 4 s5 (improvements) and s6 (vulnerabilities) approved for crew in current nebb. In current nebb seems in total 12 s5 (pilot + crew) added, and 14 s6 (pilot + crew). This means s5 in current nebb gives 5.2B roid and s6 4.46B roid.

The top 4 pilots is clear, those with s5 and s6. The rest of the top 10 is some of those with s4 (shielded app). If we substract in current nebb points from s5 and s6 for those pilots that have s4 and adjust for those without s3 (explorer) in current nebb, these have the highest roid: mandragora 6.94B, lovd 6.34, 2pilot 6.18, cosmic 5.89, encipher 5.72, emberstake 5.7, stakepool 5.48

[dry heart]

nice

[slender wave]

• s-class is basically done, but i'm tying up some loose ends... mostly stuff like responding to dm's and asking eng team for clarification on security email submissions
• Gavin was working on the sybil stuff... i believe that's almost done as well. he's out-of-office today though
• eng team is working on forwarding any raw data/code used to calculate the scores as soon as they can

[supple prawn]

hello Spork, will pilots and crew have the same roids pool?

[dry heart]

great work 😍. Thanks

[rigid crag]

Thanks spork so we wouldn't have results today?

[stiff adder]

He asked devs before and it is separate pools for S tasks for pilots and crew, just in nebb calculated using one 62.5B roid pool I think

[stiff adder]

@slender wave one question, if the eng team is preparing the raw data/code used to calculate the scores for categories C, B, A it means roids for these categories are already added correctly in current Nebb? And hence, only the final S class tasks remaining to be added to the Nebb?

[dry heart]

Hi Spork, hope you have a nice day and great work day. Can you clarify about bounty, bounty+ and recommend bounty? I think all of guys here have the same question

[slender wave]

nope, two separate pools (including for s-class)

[slender wave]

afraid not 😦 ... i reaallly want it wrapped up by friday if at all possible
i know it's been a long haul for everyone

[fringe pawn]

you guys mind if I share my calculations? or better not?

[slender wave]

yes, that's my understanding

[slender wave]

sure, sorry i thought there had been an announcement about this already
basically, say we have a submission like a pr that fixes a client bug... it doesn't really fit in one of the categories, but it's still a valuable thing so it doesn't seem fair that they get nothing. that's why we wanted to add an extra bounty award for stuff like that

[clear bridge]

Does anoma approved these bounty.

[dry heart]

thank you it make sense

[slender wave]

not roid, just bounty token

[regal quartz]

Nice sir, bounty token is $NAM?

[hallow echo]

wow

[prisma meteor]

+1 Nam per bounty

[rapid sparrow]

That's why you got that beautiful role

[clear bridge]

4 NAM 🥳🥳🥳🥳

[regal quartz]

My idol. Give me ur hand, please 💍

[cinder bloom]

what are you talking about?

[hallow echo]

Hi sir @slender wave , Could you please check my DM?

[fringe pawn]

been constructing queries for a few weeks to see how ranks are on some categories like uptime. talked a lot about it in channels

[prisma meteor]

Haha. This role is @potent bronze had set to me when I tried to protect some guys had done the Shielded App but @supple prawn say not done. Finnally I right, he wrong.

[rapid sparrow]

Hahaha okay!

[cinder bloom]

I think it’s better to do any calculations and notes before the results and not after.

[supple prawn]

I have no idea what you're talking about but I have the best Shielded App submission as certified by Spork

[crisp tree]

So it's @potent bronze we waiting for?

[prisma meteor]

Pilot: gnosed win top 1. And 2, 3, 4 are hkey, namadaguru, zen. Top 3 vs 4 have diferrence 1M NAM. Lol

[fair patio]

I didn't see yours due to you shutting the site down haha. But I know it was the only one that was an atomic shielded swap right?

Like a boss man! Did you code a CosmWasm contract to make this possible?

Mine was the web app + also created in 3 days time a CLI variant for a shielded swap (completely automatic, not atomic unfortunately). The stress in those days omg... and having to embrace CLI... bleh 😭. It looked all fancy and worked like a wizard 🧙‍♂️, but still...

In hindsight, seeing what got accepted, I shouldn't have to worry bout my IBC bridge web app.

[stiff adder]

namadaguru no shielded app so 4th, and zen in current nebb if you remove s5 and s6 more roids than hkey, so I think 1st gnosed, 2nd zen, 3rd hkey, 4th namadaguru

[prisma meteor]

Gnosed really cool. He didn't say anything. Just work.

[rigid crag]

How about crew ranking glad to see it?

[supple prawn]

Yes, atomic and trustless. I was going to present it publicly, but I found that my osmosis testnet node was acting strangely and refusing to work, so my relayer was broken. I didn't bother updating everything because I ran out of energy.

As you said, it was frustrating and stressful, there was not enough documentation on osmosis or namada. You had to read the source code to fix things 🤣

If heliax doesn't make a shielded swap app for mainnet, I plan to make my app available on mainnet

[stiff adder]

Ok I think top 10 crew: if crew guy keep s6 documentation 1st, 2nd hades, 3rd theone, 4th monleru, 5th nobita, then tphat, lucifer, subbirov, cadenza, junkio

[regal quartz]

Why you think nobita > tphat and lucifer?

[rigid crag]

Congradulation to @gaunt gull

[fair patio]

Amazing! Yeah I bet that was very stressful. The documentations are truly a problem. Namada is new, it's okay to lack in terms of docs, but Osmosis as well is just very limited when it comes to building these things. Dare I say even Cosmos in general.

Sounds great man! They'll for sure get back to you for that, unless they got too much time at hand hehe.

Great work man.

[stiff adder]

it is not think but based on data, all crew mentioned above have shielded app, and most points in current nebb after removing s5 and s6 in current top 4 in nebb

[regal quartz]

but does not include hidden tasks

[rare sparrow]

Why did you think Hades top 2 on cew ?

[clear bridge]

Roids for hidden task ware allready rewarded

[rigid crag]

It is so exciting that we live in a world that some guys can become millionaire with 3 month of hard work.

[fair patio]

This may need confirmation from the team though. Imagine hidden tasks that could only be calculated post competition or not included due to Nebb being stuck 🤪.

Or did the team already confirm?

[dry flicker]

How do you calculate anything, given that we don't know if some tasks like 99% governance are already in the Nebb or not?

[clear bridge]

Team didn't specifically confirm about the A class but what spork said above. According to that it's High likely possible that the roids has been rewarded.

[rigid crag]

Gavin clearly said that all A and C tasks were updated

[fair patio]

Ah missed that! I see, got it. Thanks guys.

[clear bridge]

Then team should to upload the raw data about all these A,B,C tasks before the grace period end.
So we can cross calculate aur trx

[rare sparrow]

Can you guess who will get top 1, 2 and 3?

[prisma meteor]

Gavin is not confirm any bro.

[supple prawn]

Are you sure nebb is currently showing A and C class tasks?

[dry flicker]

I don't know why everyone is trying to pre-calculate the final ranking. Does it make any difference to know (or get your hopes up) a couple days in advance?

[dry heart]

buy me lambo

[meager steeple]

https://tenor.com/view/calculation-office-boss-monkey-compute-gif-16300601

[clear bridge]

Mebe afte SE end we don't have anything to do that's why pre calculating thing's 😅

[dry flicker]

Like we haven't had enough surprises and "the team said that XYZ", AND all of a sudden, reality is different.
Relax, wait for data and announcement. SE is ended, S class are kinda sorted, the rest is "just" the team doing math on our txs the way the see fit

[rigid crag]

#1230547749603377273 message

@supple prawn uptime is B task

[supple prawn]

I doubt it, the uptime is 0%

[stiff adder]

yes, A/B/C points in current nebb already

[rigid crag]

We have left our jobs to participate in SE and we have nothing to do. this is just like solving a puzzle😂

[stiff adder]

see reply above from Spork, he clearly said it is his understanding that all A/B/C points are already in current nebb and eng team preparing raw data/code used to calculate score for A/B/C tasks, also the current nebb is synced to block of end of epoch 90 when SE ended, while previously it was stuck in a block of 5th April. When you clicked on extended nebb pilot names, you saw this 5th april update including the S tasks db update from 29th march. In the nebb update after SE ended, the only changes vs the extended nebb when clicking pilots was the A/B/C points from 5th April until 11th april, that's why for those who knew about the extended nebb more updated ranking, the main nebb updated after SE looked more or less the same as when clicking pilots names on extended nebb. This is because main nebb UI broken so didnt catch backend update sync of 5th April and couldnt see in main nebb, but extended nebb catched this update, meaning namada team updated ranking and roids nebb-APIs up to 5th april but not UI on main nebb, so this was shown only on extended nebb UI

[dry flicker]

I hope for you that you were extra careful, otherwise, this is a guaranteed disqualification

[crisp tree]

I just want to see results

[clear bridge]

@potent bronze he admitted
Confirm Sybil😆

[fringe pawn]

we know haha

[crisp tree]

You should have given to my friends. They missed registering and were looking to buy any account😂. But that won't be safe considering you still have the seed phrase in the case they come top 100😅

[dry heart]

you are hacked?

[low token]

The guy plays a lot. 😅

[dry heart]

sending to @potent bronze now 👮

[astral fern]

Why do you people keep confessing? There was the guy who bought an ID for kyc, then the guy who bought code, and now you? Jesus.

[dry flicker]

Because they don't care anymore if they are out of top 100 ?

[slender wave]

i got confirmation that this one is correctly categorized as security vuln since it deals with cryptoeconomic security

but just to be clear, it's not about a docs pr, there was more to the issue in the email which was dealing with discrepancies between the specs and code

[supple prawn]

I have one more question. what is the relation between the rewards for outstanding submissions and the rewards for submissions marked as "bounty x7"

So if "bounty xn" is a tier system for extra rewards, where do outstanding submissions fall in this tier?

[fringe pawn]

doesn't that still make it a docs issue? specs vs code?

[stable oar]

I think code issue if the code does not behave as described in the specs.

[rare sparrow]

Hi @slender wave & @potent bronze I have a question that I would like to clarify.
In bug case, I don't see anything related to the 4 items:

• A way to mint tokens for free or steal them form another account
• A way to halt the chain
• A way to bypass security measures such as signature checks
• A way to be bolder than voting power than bonded stake

Why this case got approve 😄 I saw Daniel | Mandragora found some that were even more serious

[dry heart]

Mr. Spork said he will

[frail nova]

If it's called a security hole, how can it be made public? Hackers can track it. LOL

I'm also really curious what the main content of that email was. But I can't ask them to display its content.

[round steppe]

What about my problem. There is unfair decision for me. You banned all my task but other people that copying code only got banned for one submission only.

[fringe pawn]

those are examples, not a finite list

[fringe pawn]

issues can be fixed, chain isn't in production

[clear bridge]

@slender wave @potent bronze i tried to find any confirmation form regarding A class roids but didn't see in anouncement or form your side does A class roids distributed or not if yes then whne we can see tha raw data .

[prisma meteor]

It's even not yet separate pool =]]] Total point of crew ~ 478B =]]

[clear bridge]

You mean the A class pool is same for both pilot and crew.

[rigid crag]

Wdym by total point?

[green ember]

they count home goals and red cards

[sudden burrow]

home goals are not in use already 😄 just a goal diff

[green ember]

yeah, you are right. forgot about thtat :))

[crisp tree]

Nobody is answering us😂. Maybe team forgot us

[rigid crag]

The forgottens

[green ember]

Zen, Are you wrting a novel?

[prisma meteor]

Spork and Gavin maybe already online? DM time =]]

[fair patio]

And they strolled around for decades to come. Once Namadians, now calling themselves Nomadars; those who have agreed to move from city to city, from project to project. Never feeling like they belong...no place to call home.

But we stand strong, as the Nomads of the wasteland, even if we No longer Mada in the eyes of the elites.

@green ember you my friend have a sixth sense.

[sudden burrow]

https://tenor.com/view/hiding-bunker-gif-18751332

[hallow echo]

Hi sir @slender wave Could you please check my DM?

[fair patio]

Thinking of Fallout right now 😂

[sudden burrow]

++

[rigid crag]

?

[young hearth]

To cut off Uptime category seems so unfair in my opinion...it means that validators who did not keep the uptime actually WIN from this decision and ot will affect the leaderboard

[stiff adder]

Yes, what has to be done is correctly count the uptime for all pre and post genesis pilots and @fringe pawn @sterile thorn can discuss with team since they have mostly the correct data I think. And as @livid niche said even without the unjail issue if there is a jail event already not possible 99% uptime. However, both several pre and post genesis pilots managed to achieve a great uptime, this means achieving a great uptime was possible for pre and post genesis pilots since several achieved it and this should be rewarded, rather than penalized and instead rewards those who didn't achieve great uptime. Let's please stick to the rules of the SE and stop any further changes of the rules of the SE, thanks

[livid niche]

Well, I don’t understand how you can remove uptime from rating calculations. Uptime is almost one of the most important network parameters.

[stiff adder]

Yes, @plucky inlet even said during the SE when there were so many halts and we stayed up many nights that it was impressive that despite all the halts chaos several validators still managed to maintain an almost perfect uptime. And now it is being suggested to remove the uptime category that even Awa said it was impressive to achieve a great uptime?👎

[young hearth]

If we remove uptime , why we dont remove S class task ( like security and shielded app, cryptography ) ? If the reason for this is that some participants could not unjail, or had some other issues that made impossible to maintain a 99% uptime. But same can be aplied to S class tasks ( security, shielded app,cryptography ) For example many of those tasks were marked as YES during campaign, and after the end of SE criteria changed and now they marked as NO, so we have no opportunity to fix something or improve our work, if criteria for this tasks were unclear why we dont cut off this category, but we want to cut off uptime ? I just want to understand the logic of decision making

[covert garden]

Who said uptime will be removed?

[young hearth]

it was discussed today on the call, that most likely this category will be removed, and team will think how to reward those who maintained 99% uptime ( bounty rewards )

[stiff adder]

Then let's remove governance also then, 100s of spam proposals nonstop, people also couldn't maintain 100% governance rate, if uptime out then governance also out, we don't want any bounty for uptime, either keep uptime and governance as it should be or remove both. At this rate seems the winners of SE might be those who created and voted hundreds of spam proposals nonstop😂 🤡 Honestly it makes much more sense to calculate uptime correctly and keep it given the amount of efforts involved for this in 2.5 months, and if anything remove the governance category since there were so many spam proposals that many couldn't/didn't vote automatically and instead focused on the official and important governance proposals

[covert garden]

Wow ok...
Massive news !
Stayed up multiple nights just for it and thought it will make a difference but it seems I was wrong 😭

[livid niche]

We can then delete the s5 and s6 tasks right away, since so few people have completed them))) 😁

[vernal robin]

just leave one task: submit either pilot or crew form to be eligble 🙂

regarding uptime it's actually quite simple: if you got jailed, this task is automatically rejected regardless of how fast you unjail. removing it from competition is not fair to people who invested their time in proper monitoring and had sleepless nights during chain halts

but looking were it is going, it was smart to focus on security vulnerability or protocol improvement tasks and ignore halted chain. would have saved a lot of time and stress 🙂

[vernal robin]

actually makes sense. having unclear requirements for security vulnerability and protocol improvement tasks also could be considered as shielded expedition flaw. initial low acceptance bar confused a lot of people and resulted in many mediocre submissions ( which also takes time and effort btw ). if acceptance criteria was clear from the beginning I believe there will be much more interesting submissions in those categories.
based on current logic of excluding tasks from the competition, they should also be moved to bounty program.

[stiff adder]

By the way in the file score extractor for the C v2 task it says first block signed, not within first 5 blocks, so this seems clarified now

[dry flicker]

I think this has been explained a couple times before, but citing a jail event has a good reason for no uptime, although relevant in normal chain conditions, was not during the SE. there have been multiple events and bugs triggering jail events out of the control or fault of many good validators. Look at the stats of the validators during the last 10 epochs when most bugs were fixed and you'll find that a lot of validators had great uptime.
Unsurprisingly, ONLY pregenesis got near perfect uptime. How is that possible? Maybe all post gen are bad validators? It maybe, the 1st and 2nd restart of the chains were done without notifying all the calories in advance, post gen had PER CONSTRUCTION 2 epochs without uptime, as they couldn't create at start, and the change consensus key command that was buggy, and having too little naan to sustain our position in the validator set, resulting in not signing blocks ... Etc etc.
All that considered, I don't find that shocking to move those tasks to the bounty program (or something else like a special right for a delegation from the foundation at mainnet). But I'm post gen, I'm obviously biased my way

[dry flicker]

@potent bronze didn't you say that it was signing at least once in the 5 first blocks ?

[stiff adder]

Read the file score extractor file Gavin published in announcements, find task.rs file and there you see clearly written SignFirstBlockOfUpgradetoV2

[crisp tree]

What's the score extractor about

[young hearth]

i understand your position, and we all here just saying our thoughts....Same can be applied to S4 S5 S6 and they can be moved to bounty rewards, because many good works cannot be completed or modified after SE and many participants miss roids for whole category...

[oak fox]

@potent bronze check your DM. Now that my S6 it has been finally correctly approved, it's time for S5 🙂

[stiff adder]

Yes there is a big bias of course, those validators who didn't get the uptime points are pushing hard to get uptime removed so they can jump some positions in the ranking. We were mostly quiet but now it is enough, we aren't going to let you manipulate the rules as you wish for your own benefit and trying to rank higher in the ranking by damaging other pilots

[oak fox]

By the way, it's curious, right? I even reported this behaviour internally before than the original issue in the original ibc-rs repo

Hehe

[vernal robin]

btw what were the bugs that could cause you go to jail ? ( except for consensus key )

[fair patio]

Uhm I don't think it's decided to cancel uptime right? Didn't hear anything decisive. Was just speculations if I'm not mistaken.

Though, pregenesis already actually has 33 people who have 99 percent uptime.

43 above 95%.

Think @fringe pawn's calculations were like roughly 15 of post genesis that had above 95% and max 5 that had 99% (these calculations are without the first two epochs).

So:

= 95% is around 58 validators; 560M ROIDs per validator.
= 99% is around 38 validators; 850M ROIDs per validator.

Both are already quite saturated categories, a max of roughly 1.3B ROIDs possible to get if this is how the team will calculate it.

PS: I didn't split up pilot and crew member. Did crew also have this task separately?

[fringe pawn]

it's a complicated issue (and I haven't caught up with all discussion on this so bear with my tentative comments). is there any word on why uptime is being proposed cut? (post genesis could not possibly achieve 99% uptime due to advantages to genesis tbf including information assymetry that caused almost all to be jailed on the restart of halted chain. one might argue the thresholds should be designed to meet "best possible performance given possible", but I'm not really dogmatic on this one, can see both sides' arguments)

[stiff adder]

No B task category for crew

[dry flicker]

"mostly quiet" 🤣
I'll leave it at that

[sterile thorn]

personaly dont care about uptime calculations
this is testnet
from my point of view validators who got jailed and unjailed, especially if it is 1st namada testnet of thier should be counted as reliable validators
better to get jail at testnet, understnad about periods, understnad how uptime is calculated and do it at testnet, than at mainnet.
I am ready to bet that validators who have experience at cosmos eco and who went to namada and got jailed having much more clearance who wasnt jailed here since this is not regular cosmosfork

[oak fox]

Feb 9 https://github.com/cosmos/ibc-rs/issues/1080

Feb 5
https://discord.com/channels/@me/1203005508206862447/1204121706931945534

[fringe pawn]

dude. this is totally uncalled for

[stiff adder]

In the announcement by Spork on 26/04: 'There's a one-week grace period for participants to verify the correctness of their submissions. This period is not for the purposes of appealing or arguing for/against submission approval, but for catching cases of human error (eg: information was incorrectly copied/missing from one sheet to another).' -> If there is some exception like some vulnerability or protocol improvement submission with a recommended x3 or x4 bounty that might be approved ok, but if after the auditing and saying no appeals but just catching human errors and 3 weeks of waiting, now many vulnerabilities and improvements will be approved again, honestly many will be out and not take this seriously anymore

[dry flicker]

Don't worry, it seems to just be Mandragora 🤣

[fair patio]

That's why I didn't want to get caught up in false hope until the results are actually in 😅.

[oak fox]

@slender wave @potent bronze In case it gets lost:

It's curious, right? I even reported this behaviour internally before than the original issue in the original ibc-rs repo.

Feb 9 https://github.com/cosmos/ibc-rs/issues/1080

Feb 5
https://discord.com/channels/@me/1203005508206862447/1204121706931945534

Chat history is there, it doesn't lie. 😌

[supple prawn]

it is Cosmos that should reward you for this, not Namada. Why should a bug in the ibc-rs repo be Namada's problem?

Ok, you found a bug but namada only uses it, namada didn't create it.

[oak fox]

It's already considered a security issue by the team. Please stop putting your nose in matters that doesn't affect you. Thanks

[stiff adder]

Oh so why @fathom hawk vulnerability has been quietly updated to Yes in the excel?

[dry flicker]

Ahahah I didn't know that
Come on, you've got to be kidding me. This whole thing is a joke

[fair patio]

Well, I guess we're all just getting re-evaluations huh....

[fringe pawn]

thing is, the "human error only" is/was a mistake. there should be the opportunity to appeal but ideally it should be more open imo. and preferably also more objectively consistent criteria

[fair patio]

It's just that we're being told one thing, but other things happen.

Now what? We all just gonna start appealing and fighting for our rejected submissions? Even if Spork stated we can't do this, only human errors?

Seems that those who ignore this and persistently fight for their case are getting their way.

[narrow fable]

Seriously? I'm really confused by everything that's happened. At first, our activities were approved, but then they got rejected. Even after the team announced that everyone should respect the decision, there was an appeal, which led to a new re-evaluation.
I'm really disappointed with everything that's been going on.

[supple prawn]

You're so rude. I have the right to comment. And the vulnerability you reported is not due to a repo created by namada

[stiff adder]

At least @potent bronze in the final score make sure for all the S class tasks the points are calculated from each pilot and crew roids pools correctly, in current nebb the pilots roid pools of S class tasks are also shared with crew so points are very diluted and this is some error in the code to calculate the score for S class tasks, thanks

[oak fox]

I casually thought the same, I mean, that this turned into a joke which already started with a change of rules/criteria at SE ending. If A is A, it stills A even though rules try to say that A is suddenly a B. That's also the joke as well as disrespectful towards to those who have been playing within the established rules during whole competition. The fight is not over, btw

[knotty lion]

👉 👈

[oak fox]

Am I rude? i'm just saying that why you still commenting on my things (?). Am I commenting on yours? No. It has been considered as a valid security issue by the team, and that's it. Please stop trying to confront ppl with child and troll attitudes. It's really tiring to deal with such a nonsensical things.

[fathom hawk]

Is my security finding legit : **YES **. is it reported and targeted by someone else with PoC : **No **. then this is a human err not from Spork but from the auditor who audit the security finding .

[oak fox]

C'mon...

[fathom hawk]

#1230547749603377273 message

[oak fox]

I'm surprised that ppl complain about ppl fighting for what's fair and against an unfair decision. This is becoming ridiculous and disrespectful for those who have been contributing during a long time without any monetary interest. Let's stop this mockery

[meager steeple]

Gogogo mods!!! Take them S tier tasks, you got this!

[oak fox]

Are you trying to say that because of ppl being mods, they can't fight for what's fair?

I'm really amazed

The mod role is a volunteer one, btw, so please show a bit of respect to those that contribute and contributed their time

[narrow fable]

@potent bronze and @slender wave would like to appeal, as they believe there was a human error on the part of the team regarding my activity. Initially, I received a positive evaluation from a team developer (Heliax), who approved the activity as eligible.

However, after a new re-evaluation, my activity was rejected. In this case, I kindly ask that the person responsible for the re-evaluation reach a consensus with the developer from Heliax.

[stiff adder]

Your vulnerability initially approved was rejected after the auditing, our protocol improvement with PR approved was also rejected after the auditing and the same for many others. We respected the decision because the team said no appeals possible. However this wasn't true, your submission rejected after the auditing has now been approved so everyone, including us too, should now have the same right to appeal and have a reevaluation then. We don't trust any info anymore from announcements since proven totally unreliable for multiple times. I guess this is why blockchains exist in the first place, because you can't trust so you need trustless tech, if the rules of the SE had been on-chain and immutable and based on on-chain data or approved S tasks which can't then be revoked once decision is on-chain we would avoid all these situations, SE a great example of why we need blockchains and trustless tech. What's quite bad also imo is creating serious false hopes for people thinking some results are final and then suddenly everything change, I guess this is business but people need to be quite tough emotionally to go through all these for the last few weeks

[dry flicker]

That's an interesting point of view, considering that the "noble bug" reported by Crouton Digital is marked as bounty+

[meager steeple]

Yeah, you can fight, that’s literally what I said, go get the last S tier, boys 🦾

[fringe pawn]

what's the bug you found?

[oak fox]

Why are you talking in plural? I'm just fighting for what's mine, that's it. I won the competition by far, and it looks like you guys are turning into mere trolls, tbh

[fringe pawn]

I think understanding why people are upset would go a long way towards fixing this.

[potent bronze]

I'll review msgs later

in meantime, if you're confronting someone, pls do it out of this thread and server. if you disregard this, i will mute your account for 12 hours

[oak fox]

In case context is needed in regard to those that are constantly confronting other ppl, here you have 👆

[sudden burrow]

https://tenor.com/view/thesadtimes-the-sad-times-sad-times-sadtimes-sheep-gif-16087264721802258432

[stiff adder]

I would like to propose one idea to potentially resolve the current situation, you can share your thoughts also:

-When the SE ended on the 11th of April there was a number of vulnerabilities and protocol improvements tasks that had been approved for pilots and crew and the roid points already added to the Nebb for weeks

-After the SE ended there was an announcement that an audit will be done for the S class tasks of vulnerabilities and protocol improvements and only serious vulnerabilities or mathematically proven protocol improvements would be approved. Many complained that there was no option to submit any new vulnerability or improvements and that since theirs was marked approved before they moved on to other tasks instead of trying to find more serious vulnerabilities or protocol improvements

-When the audit was completed it was announced on the 24th April the newly approved few vulnerabilities and protocol improvements as well as the bounty tier system for previously approved tasks in these categories and rejected after the audit. Also, in the announcement it was mentioned that there was a one-week grace period not to appeal the outcome of the audit but just to inform about some human errors, for example Spidey pilot and one crew member had incorrectly marked as Yes a protocol improvement task that was a human error by Spork and corrected

-The one-week grace period ended on 1st May, however after the grace period had ended, on 2nd May some vulnerability tasks were quietly changed to approved, bypassing not only the previously announced rules about no appeals possible but also the grace period, since the edits on the excel were done after the grace period had ended

-Now, everyone understandably wants to appeal as well and this is going to be an absolute chaos. Getting out of this mess is complex, do we go now back to the vulnerabilities and protocol improvements approved when SE ended on 11th April before the auditing? Do we review again all now and do a new audit? And after another more audit, and so on?

-Given all the above, it seems the most fair and practical solution would be to remove the vulnerabilities and protocol improvements tasks entirely. The C, B, A tasks are all based on on-chain data so this accurate, reliable and not up for debate or appeals so can be kept. The RPC/Indexer and Relayer S tasks were also mostly standardized and correctly verified so no debate or appeals here and can be kept. The same applies for the explorer/tools and shielded app categories, the requirements were made clear and maintained after the SE ended. But the vulnerabilities and protocol improvements categories should be entirely removed to solve this chaos and mess, or it will be one audit and another without ending. For the vulnerabilities and protocol improvements the bounties could be used as already suggested to reward these contributions outside of the SE. I suggest we do a voting using the registered crew and pilots accounts and if the overall majority supports removing the vulnerabiliies and protocol improvements categories then it is implemented

[young hearth]

Thank you @dry flicker , so it means we can also appeal now? And it can be changed back to YES again as it was before ? @slender wave @potent bronze

[austere rose]

Both my finding vulnerabilities and protocol improvements tasks were rejected after the audit, and now it seems new folks with rejected tasks for these are getting approved quietly. I will comment that yes, the evaluation of these two tasks has been unfair and super confusing. It would be fair to completely remove them, as they can significantly alter the points by their approval. S class task 1-3 should be only considered, as for other tasks it seems the criteria for approval is not consistent across submissions as all. Just mark S class 4-6 eligible for bounty but not for Roids as their approval has been extremely controversial

[fringe pawn]

I think this creates more problems than it solves tbh (I don't have any 4-6 atm approved myself)

[austere rose]

I disagree. Changing the outcome of tasks post approval and then changing again, without explanation and during grace period where review outcome shouldn’t change is problematic. There is no consistent evaluation criteria for these tasks and it’s causing a lot more problems. Qualifying them as bounty keeps them separate from the SE pool and recognize these submission subjectively based on their impact

[fringe pawn]

I can see the argument for it, and it is an elegant solution. it is, however, not fair for those who got approved. Tentatively

[austere rose]

It wasn’t fair for those who got rejected after approval either. Fair has kind of gone out of the box a long time ago imo. Anyway, evaluating them subjectively is fair since their evaluation is all over the place. My securities task, both were high impact but got qualified for bounty x3 and not approved. How is that fair, compared to others exploiting an existing task and getting approved for far lesser impact?

[prisma meteor]

I think team need to use time machine and move to before change the rule. Changing is not solved anything but got a lot of confuse.

[fringe pawn]

Hey Hades

[fair patio]

Zen's sad.

[fair patio]

Can I go on a date with Persephone?

[serene cloud]

🫡

[frail nova]

But don't forget piki and famnode

[dry heart]

LOL SE never end

[prisma meteor]

these guys should get ban because copy code 😄

[marsh drift]

I also think so, everything becomes even more chaotic and unorganized when the new sheet is released

[frail nova]

I like the word “yes” more than “other” 🥲

[dry heart]

IMO the current result is good to go, if we do any changes, SE will be never end 🤣

[versed cedar]

I've been as positive as anyone positive, but this has dragged on too long. The complications could have probably been mitigated with a more condensed approach to Shielded Expedition.

Just in general- The more data there is the more variables there are to evaluate. Live and learn. Can't go back in time. But seeing the community like this right now is worrisome for the future.

[marsh drift]

So what's your solution?

[versed cedar]

The sooner things wrap up the better. People will just have to deal with the final results. As per one of the announcements, the grace period wasn't meant to be so chaotic. What's final then should be final now- with few exceptions. That's how that announcement reads, at least.

[prisma meteor]

I dont like the case one task can be win all games. A lot of yes will don't allow this happen 😄

[prisma meteor]

If I am Spork. I will require fee for DM =]]

[dry heart]

Let's end it today, it's been more than 3 months🥲 ⏲️

[green ember]

would be a cool startup. premium dm subscription, 1 dm a day. 10 dm if you buy enterprise package

[prisma meteor]

No rush 😄 I'm enjoying this time =]] debate everyday, everytime =]]

[dry heart]

Should there be a fee for debating here? I feel like I can make a lot of money 🤣

[frail nova]

In the Pilot Result and Crew Result sheets, just replace "yes" instead of "other" and everything will go smoothly.

Haven't removed shielded yet?

[dry heart]

what is Unknown?

[rare skiff]

arguably steward related tasks favour people with a lot of naan/have friends with naan since you have to get voted in the first place.. but who cares at this point, right?

[dry flicker]

Although I like that idea of cancelling fully S5 and S6, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning of applying this to S4. Shielded apps rules were clarified before the end of SE. A lot of people took that opportunity to publish stuff that matched those rules .

Also, by proceeding like that, I feel there should be a reorganization of the rewards distribution plan : if you remove complex tasks that are capable of sorting drastically the leaderboard, that means a lot of people will have closer points. This means there is no logic to having 5th receive 300k more than 6th, if their score is very close.

If the scores are more linear, so should the rewards be too.

I'll voice that reflection here, as I'm pretty sure this is one of the factors creating so much anger and competitiveness : everyone with good enough submissions wants to be in top 10 because the rewards are outrageously higher than for other positions. Why not spread the rewards linearly with the points distribution ? Like sum all the points of top 100 players, and each player receives his score / total x NAM pool.
And If you really want to throw in some competitivity, add a small multiplicator like +10% every 10 spots in leaderboard.

What do you think @potent bronze / @slender wave ?
Currently top5 shares 9.5NAM.
95 other people share 10.5 NAM

is this the kind of distribution that has any chance of sharing the rewards accusing to the work and time spent by people ?

[green ember]

Namada cage fight :))))

[dry heart]

1 NAM/message

[scenic sun]

The rewards for the top ten are so generous, they won't allow the rules to change, as this would reduce their rewards, lol.

[dry flicker]

All in all, do your calculations, and find a fair solution that frustrates the least amount of people. Because, currently every decision/change of rule leads to more angry/disappointed people.

And it is seriously destroying the credibility of the project, of the team, and overall the community.

Ask Heliax people / Anoma what they expect from this competition ?

• a distribution of rewards that will make 10 or 20 very privileged people and all the rest of the community will leave Namada for ever because they feel betrayed
• A fairer distribution that might frustrate a bit the top 10 who will get less, but where 50 to 70 people might stay in the community because their work is valued in the end

At that point, I'm so disappointed by every decision, that I'm not even sure it's relevant to appeal or fight for approval of anything.

Is it worth it to fight to be 10th instead of 11th just to screw someone else who will loose that spot?

Hey, all people complaining/fighting to be in top 10/20 (myself included) : have you considered that if 95% of the participants of SE leaves the boat angry and propagate bad press about Namada, your amazing pile of NAM tokens will be worth nothing ?
No community means no trusting users, means none to populate MASP or advertise your project and beloved token pile. How is that beneficial for anyone ?

[rigid crag]

Everyone calculate how they get more rewards with changing rules and propose new rules. please, please stop this pain

[dry flicker]

That's my whole point. Have you even read my message?
I'm suggesting a solution that clearly does not benefit me but the majority. So before discarding a reflection, do read it. And I actually don't care how they do it. I'm just saying "find a distribution that frustrates less people, so that the community does not implodes more than it already is"

[dry heart]

If you are in the top 3 you will not debate, if you are in the top 3 and are downgraded to a lower rank due to another guy you will debate. Repeat for the past 3 weeks => solution, the team makes decisions based on the team's goals, desires, and vision. Stop all debates now 🙂

[left rover]

I suggest that the eng team come forward themselves to explain the reasons behind this decision (for instance, why previous submissions were all denied, but now are approved) instead of having Gavin relay the message anymore.

[dry heart]

Community is the key, but now I think we have the wrong key and 200 people here cannot represent the whole community, you are affecting the community because they are waiting too long

[dry flicker]

I don't think this is it. It feels more like the team is trying to damage control the mess created by a competition which was clearly not fully organized for such a huge amount of rewards and with a technical state of the project that was not suited for the magnitude of the competition.
But because they still decided to go with it, now they try to find solutions to preserve what they can .
I'm just saying "preserve the community". Otherwise you have a handful of people with giant bags of a token that's worth nothing

[gray pendant]

only 200 people who have a lot of tokens, they dont represent the whole community. above all, they are people who want the tokens they hold to have great value

[rare sparrow]

Remember this is a competition, there are winners and losers. Accept defeat and don't be bitter 😀

[rigid crag]

You are changing the main rules. And I'm sure this does not end here others want to apply their rules. We will live in an endless pain this way. I hope the team announce the final results today and end this.

[frail nova]

Hey guys, just return “Yes” instead of “Other” in tasks S5 and S6. Then all problems will be resolved smoothly 😉🫶👏

[gray pendant]

where are u? 6 11 26 or 101?

[frail nova]

This was the factor for the recent chaos. Just return the original, everything will be in order and the majority will agree

[dry flicker]

Yeah but what if this is THE rule that generates so much frustration amongst players ?
Everyone who is arguing these past few weeks are people who feel betrayed because they have put their life on hold for 2-3 months and worked their ass off, to finally get a huge slap in the face at the end. How is that working, expect for the handful who will have managed to fight their way to the top by negotiating and successive rule change. People fight because the incentive to do so it's way too big.
When there is food for everyone in the room, people don't fight to get the last piece of cheese (yeah I'm french, I like cheese)

[rigid crag]

You remember me like people in general channel who always were saying "extend 100 winners to 10000" exactly with same reasonings.

[rare sparrow]

So it's no longer a competition 😄

[dry flicker]

Not really, I'm just suggesting to spread the rewards differently in the top 100, so that people who actually worked and contributed to the project. Rewarding 1000 people when there is evident Sybil abuse from the beginning would be ridiculous.
It still a competition, I'm not saying "give 200k to everyone in top 100 so the majority is happy". I'm saying "if you remove S5/S6, that are creating so much in fighting, spread the rewards in based on points because there are no big deciding task anymore"
Re-read my initial message if you have any doubt on that

[rare sparrow]

Trust the Namada team, they will do the best for their community 😄 Relax, my friend

[rigid crag]

Let's be honest you said before: "I couldn't change my life this time" and now you are trying changing the rules to achieve this. I will probably benefit from your suggestion but I am sure it doesn't stop here. Let's let team decide hope best for everyone.

[crisp tree]

How long more are we going to wait. I'm really tired of waiting.

[left rover]

At least one more week. I think Gavin and Spork's DMs have blown up again.

[clear scarab]

This was easy to predict.

[dry heart]

if today team dont stop this thread, we should share 30M NAMADA to 146k who registered and closed SE

[vernal robin]

Same for me. I was confused by the acceptance criteria and submitted similar tasks and got approved. After end of expedition - I’m only eligible for bounty. But I wasn’t doing those tasks for bounty. I was doing them for the competition. If it was clear from the start, I would not focus on what was interesting to me like building tools, where I submited several tasks which I believe will be helpful for the project and focus on s5, s6. Btw the same “catch-all bucket logic” could be applied to building tools category . How could you compare feature rich blockchain explorer which takes weeks to complete and involves several components to maintain to grafana dashboard that could be finished in a half day. Let’s reevaluate this category also.
Seeing that even after deadline some of the “other”submissions get approved I would like to also appeal, and I imagine many people also do. As this could take forever the best course of action is to either remove s5, s6 from the competition or bring back the initial approval decision.

[dry heart]

it never end if they dont stop thread

[pine agate]

Guys, has the battle not ended yet? 😮‍💨

[dry flicker]

Hahahaha you have good memory. Yes you make a very good point, and I do have my own bias for sure. That said, my comment about life changing stuff is my situation compared to what when I had when I had 6 S class validated. Now, for me, it doesn't change much the way the rewards are split

[stiff adder]

Read again carefully my comment above, I only suggested removing the vulnerability and protocol improvement tasks and leave the rest since rules clear and not changed after the SE ended. Other pilots after my comment suggested to also remove other tasks that they didn't complete, but no because the only rules changed after SE had ended was for vulnerabilities and protocol improvement. The only rule changed after SE ended was for these two tasks everything else including prize distribution should stay the same @potent bronze @slender wave Just remove entirely these two S tasks of vulnerabilities and improvements from current Nebb with already all B, C, A points, add the pending S tasks in the other four categories, remove sybils, release today and it's done. Gavin you said when presenting the auditing that probably nobody would be approved for improvements and serious vulnerabilities, so just remove these categories and reward valuable contributions with bounties outside of SE @tawdry jetty @oak fox @fair patio @fathom hawk @supple prawn do you also support this? It is the most fair solution for everyone in SE and the only way to end all this and get the final results

[fringe pawn]

the problem is the lack of a real grace period

[fringe pawn]

I like cheese too

[prisma meteor]

Spork’s WIP for justice league =]]

[low token]

I just want to be able to see result today

[fringe pawn]

here are some of the issues as I see them rn:
S4 (shielded apps) category became far too permissive in final evaluation. if we canceled s5-6 why not also cancel s4? but that wouldn't be fair to those who have spent almost all of SE working on S4. the barrage of simple cli wrappers that really did not add much value towards the final 1-2 days of SE has 1. really diluted this category and 2. ultimately means everyone who got approved for S4 will be ahead of the rest given how the points are structured. I think a lot would be solved if the stated criteria for S4 would be applied (more focus on value added) and submissions would be regraded. there are some great submits from especially post-gen pilots, but there is also a lot submitted last minute from especially crew members that really don't meet the bar here. to be clear I'm not arguing removing the category, but seems to me there is a disparity between the strictness of s5-6 and the permissiveness of s4 in evaluations. (please understand, I want to still see the quality s4 submissions get points)

[dry heart]

why cancel s5 s6? it already audited and evaluted 2 weeks after SE ended 🙏

[lucid crystal]

Things have really spiraled out of control

[fringe pawn]

WIP already included rules changes....

[dry heart]

He is a super hero 🙂

[clear bridge]

Cancel whole SE and re do it.😆

When you are not in 100 even try to Sybil with two wallets in same category but still here.

[dry heart]

great idea 🤣

[rigid crag]

Just some clarification about two participants who got yes for security vulnerability and publish final results today anything other than this will put the whole SE in an endless Circle

[vernal robin]

hey @potent bronze, sorry for tagging you here, I'm not sure you will accept my dm soon. I've already texted it to spork and leave it here.

Seing several tasks were appealed and approved after the deadline, I would like to also appeal

i've submited #2358 as an improvement for the namada wallet extension. Namada wallet extensinos is the face of the protocol. Typically users start their journey from wallet and I found and fixed issue that can drastically reduce first experience if you accidently skipped some character from your pk. there was no error message, application just refused to continue and user might think it is broken. by submitting https://github.com/anoma/namada-interface/pull/720 I improved the protocol and user experience with it.

I've submitted #2354 as security valnuerability. while I agree this is not a criticial security valnuerability, this is still a potentiall breach and even described in the official rust security advisory database
https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2024-0320.html. My pr - https://github.com/anoma/namada/pull/2999

Initially #2354 and #2358 were approved - after deadline they don't. If rules could be hardened to those categories, why they weren't changed to "building tools category" ? According to the examples in building tools category block explorers should only be considered. Open source new tooling is a very loose bucket and can accept any submission.

[fringe pawn]

no offense to your submissions, but I can see why they were not approved in those categories (however I do agree that if appeals are available they should be available broadly)

[fringe pawn]

ok maybe the security one is legit idk. could be I was too quick there

[vernal robin]

no offense taken. the thing is, they were approved initially. and so as many similar submissions. if they were not, I would improve or change them. My point is - changing acceptance critirea to only part of the tasks is not fair. Let's revise other categories in that case. Or remove s5 and s6 like it is done to similar cases

[stiff adder]

A, B, C tasks are on-chain so we don't debate this because all data is on-chain and clear for the points, and can be verified with raw data and code to calculate the scores. Rpc, relayer, explorer, shielded app is also clear and Spork did a remarkable job here, all rules explained before SE ended and no changes to approved tasks in these categories after SE ended so all good and clear also. But vulnerabilities and protocol improvements at this point need to be absolutely removed and awarded outside SE with bounties. In WIP certain vulnerabilitiies and improvements approved, then a surprise auditing and most rejected and just few approved with no appeals possible, then actually appeals possible and some additional approved again, and what's next? more auditing, more appeals? Just remove vulnerabilities and improvements and release results today this is the only solution possible to close this circus and have a fair ranking for the SE that we all deserve after 2.5 months of insane work and 3 weeks of waiting

[fringe pawn]

personally, I think the way to go is get evaluations right rather than remove entire categories. but an appeals period where everyone can appeal is needed imo. (and also I think there is a place for community feedback if there are submissions that seem entirely out of place, though I'll admit this one is tricky for obvious reasons)

[vernal robin]

I wasn't clear probably when I said they should be removed. What I meant is to move them to a bounty program like it is done for all other ambigous tasks. I seriously starting to think, we need a second ranking table for the bounty category with a seperate reward pool with all of the ambigous tasks like shielded txes, uptime, s5, s6 and other outstanding submissions that couldn't be properly evaluated.
But changing acceptance criteria to a subset of tasks or removing only selective categories after the competition deadline is not fair to all people who dedicated 2 months of their life to this event. I think it should be all or nothing approach. We either leave those tasks as they were described and evaluated initially, or move them to a separate pool.

[young hearth]

completely agree, we were doing all task for competition, not for bounty....

[stiff adder]

Yes, but uptime or other C tasks don't have much impact anyway for the ranking since points are very diluted. The issue with vulnerabilities and improvements is that this 100% defines the winners of the SE so it is a very serious matter, one day we have a top 10 with WIP results, then another top 10 with auditing, now another top 10 with appeals, given the magnitude and impact of vulnerabilities and improvements in the final top 10 that's why these 2 tasks should be removed and awarded via bounty

[rigid crag]

For serious vulnerabilities I think people deserve to be even in rank 1. it could break the project entirely if it have been discovered later in the mainnet.

[dry heart]

agree

[stiff adder]

There weren't really any serious vulnerabilities submitted during the SE, that's why the bar was lowered and ux issues and similar were approved. Why not just approve only serious vulnerabilities if there were some before the SE ended? Then the auditing was done and apparently some serious vulnerabilities approved, but honestly who is doing the auditing that missed it seems other serious vulnerabilities? Or maybe none are serious enough?

[rigid crag]

Tightening the vulnerabilities acceptance just for those which change flow of tokens can solve your concerns about huge impact on ranking I think. something that team tried to do I guess.

[dry heart]

Spork said no appeal 😂

who got approved after appealed guys? why is it happen? in the announcement they said "This period is not for the purposes of appealing or arguing for/against submission approval, but for catching cases of human error" , only human error would be considered 🙂

[woven gull]

It's time to finish and announce the final results. Everything has gone on too long. There cannot be an ideal solution in this situation, someone will still be dissatisfied.

[barren pulsar]

@potent bronze IMO, the best decision was keeping the acceptance threshold low, that would help to dilute the points as much as possible for all tasks.
then for higher quality submissions, the team could have reward them with extra Bounty rewards,
without changing rules after the deadline, which is sort of unfair to many of us following this pattern during the competition

[vernal robin]

Not entirely agree. While I admire people who found serious valnuerabilities and they definitely should get credit for that, shielding expedition was not only about security audit. It had many various tasks for builders, validators and community members. That’s why there are many categories. Changing acceptance criteria’s after the deadline to only some categories is not right, just as favouring quality submissions only in selective categories.

[crisp tree]

Can the devs do something?

[fringe pawn]

agreed.

[dry flicker]

"Zen typing..." for the last 30 min. Something big is brewing 🙂

[vernal robin]

After all, it was stated by they team: all tasks were either yes or no. There was nothing about the quality level. If it passes the threshold - you get credit for it. My s5 and s6 were approved after the deadline. Now they don’t. In that case I would like to have the right to appeal and if after that they won’t get approved to have some time to improve them to fit the updated criteria’s after the deadline

[fringe pawn]

Hm. I think the bounty/other vs approved does create troubles, as stanisloe points out. The only way that setup makes sense is if it applies to stuff that doesn't fit categories but still merit some rewards. or "above and beyond" submits. rn it seems a little random which gets approved and which get bounty. let's be clear that re competition, yes > bounty (but this depends on rank so the picture is blurry). not even sure what I'm trying to say here. all in all, the big issue here I think, is that atm there is not much clarity on why some submits have been approved and others not (and idk if that partly has to do with different reviewers). (I agree with stanisloe on appeals period, I do feel at this stage it's impractical if not impossible to start having people improve their submissions, while it might have been the best approach weeks back)

[prisma meteor]

Zen is writing novel 😄 Just chill and wait 😄

[knotty lion]

😁

[fair patio]

I'ma say this again, cause back then I for the first time strongly started to disagree with a decision made: re-evaluating submissions post competition was the biggest mistake by far. This was the moment the project started to move against our expectations, resulting into more sourness than healthy competitive energy among ourselves.

We all knew that feeling bitter was part of this competition, cause there are winners and losers. Yet we knew the stakes. The moment it became unpredictable, we started to turn hard against one another. It's, in a sense, that feeling of betrayal that we all started to feel here.

I've seen ideas mentioned above and I really just want to support whatever to keep the community intact. Even if it would downgrade my position tremendously.

But the main reason we got to this point is due to the re-evaluations that took place post competition. That's what I believe to be the root issue.

Source: an excerpt of "Zen's Tantrums" (page 314, L216-L300)

[fringe pawn]

all in all, I think these things are important:

• community should have a sense of fairness and consistency in the evaluations
• there should be clear guidelines that are communicated to community with by which criteria the categories are accepted
• it should be clear those criteria are followed in what gets accepted and not
• there should be some appeals opportunity (though atm we may be a little past that time/processwise)
• there should not be any sense that some players get an advantage over others (I am not saying this is the case, but the impression alone is problematic)

[supple prawn]

Hey @hkey 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

🫵🏻 🤣

[stiff adder]

This comment was before the SE ended and before the auditing was announced, and it was in reply to your constant comments that only your shielded app was good and all others no, I see you like to mislead without showing the context

[vernal robin]

agree, shielded app critereas were discussed and updated before the deadline and there were plenty of time to complete it

[fringe pawn]

yeah but then 20 shielded aps submissions where a lot of them did not live up to the stated criteria were approved. so I would like to see a reeval of that category tbh. (it's fair game a lot made a run for it doing very simple cli wrappers, but the added value bit is sorely missing on a lot of them imo)

[supple prawn]

Nope, it is clear from your message that you are objecting randomly without reading the chat.
A context for what I'm objecting to:

#1227752700498677810 message

[rigid crag]

Really agree with @woven gull all of us are biased. Dropping the results ASAP with some clarification save us from this endless waiting.

[vernal robin]

to be honest I don't think the definition of shielded actions is quite clearly stated if you cannot find it neither in official documentation nor in the shieleded expedition roid point system blog post.
to me it was not clear that shielded action has to be atomic. why it has to be atomic ?
let's say I want to unshield my assets and stake them for some launchpool for a month. after a month I want to unstake them and shield them back. in my understanding this is a shieldeded action. it's hard to cover all such edge cases with atomic actions, so that's why you need to have a way to easily unshield / shield your assets via ibc and where such apps are legit.

[dry heart]

dev should do something 🙂

[fringe pawn]

it doesn't have to be atomic. but that's not the same as anything goes. anyways i've written enough on this topic..

[supple prawn]

The message I quoted does not say that shielded actions need to be atomic. But it says that Shielded Actions need to interact with a dapp to be a Shielded Action. According to this definition, there are 6-7 people who make a real Shielded App.

of course, if the example you gave interacts with a dapp on another network, it is also a shileded action. what I have been objecting to for weeks is the rejection of apps that only do ibc transfers and do not interact with any dapp. it has nothing to do with whether the apps work atomically or not.

[thin drum]

The SE most likely attracted a good portion of those who would want to build on Namada. Seeing the SE play out like this is doing nothing for morale. How many devs will want to build on Namada after this?

[dry heart]

ultra totally fully ultimately completely extremely extremely agree 🙏 stop debate

[vernal robin]

personally that's even less clear to me that it has to interact with dapp. in my understanding a tool that helps you perform a shieled action: assists in creating spending key, shows you your shielded balance and allows to conviniently shield/unshield to any chain is a valid shielded app. there is no way you can build an app for all cases and interact with all smartcontracts / dapps where you might need to perform a shielded action, except for the common scenarios like swaps for example.

[left rover]

Some submissions are literally just wrapping the CLI(for example, bash script). And some others... well, even though the copy-pasting barrier is a bit higher than explorers, but still...

[fringe pawn]

so has anyone actually ran this scoring-tool? can't really wrap my head around it, a little too complicated for my tech pea-brain 🙃

[dry heart]

are there seeding data? like hidden tasks data in db?

[fringe pawn]

the code is published. presumably you can find it there if you're hardcore enough

[dry heart]

I know but my concern is maybe we need to seeding some data to start

[supple prawn]

If "needs to interact with the app" sounds more complicated to you, unfortunately this is not Namada's problem. i would also like to remind you that Spork agrees with what i'm saying but accepts all these submissions in order to keep the acceptance threshold for shielded app submissions

@vernal robin I didn't quote your message 🤣

[prisma meteor]

I want to Submit a Security task about the Infinity loop of reviewing in SE 😄 I believe I will get Yes soon 😄

[vernal robin]

me too. app hash in evaluation criterias 🙂

[fringe pawn]

some documentation on the scores extractor tool would be nice. maybe just a little readme?

[vernal robin]

it's not complicated. it's just didn't seem mandatory to me. like in all categories "shielded app" category has outstanding submissions which took more time and effort to complete I totally agree and respect the work was done. But this is also true for other categories, like building tools / protocol improvement / security.
But this doesn't mean the work that was done to meet the bar should be neglected. Also this doesn't mean that some categories, like building integration and tooling should accept anything vaguely representing the category definition and others, like security valnuerability should be very strict and reavaluated after the deadline.
Giving the credit to outstanding sumbission as a MUST, but it was not the requirement to complete the task.

[dry heart]

correct

[supple prawn]

Interestingly, the only thing that is directly defined by the CEO is Shielded Actions.

If you really want to reward outstanding submissions, you have to do it within the Shielded Expedition which has a huge reward pool. So giving 50k tokens to someone who has lost hundreds of thousands of tokens after the contest is over is not sincere.

Reward successful people with fewer tokens after the competition, reward less successful people with more tokens through competition awards. Sounds ridiculous 🤦🏻‍♂️

[fringe pawn]

you guys can argue the definition of shielded apps all day. we did that a few weeks ago. my main concern is the guidelines that were put up as requirements don't cover a lot of the accepted submissions imo

anyways I've made lists of scoring on many tasks from indexer via direct sql queries btw. not sure why a somewhat abstracted "extractor tool" is needed. it's not exactly easy to look through what data is being drawn from it

[stiff adder]

Gavin and Awa clearly said multiple times that for S tasks it was yes/no and only one submission per category possible, there wasn't a grading for quality, those were the rules. If someone decided to nevertheless submit some outstanding submissions or several submissions for the same category knowing that the criteria was just yes/no that's their decisions and they knew the rules. If now Gavin says for outstanding submissions there will be some bounty outside of SE then feel lucky and thankful about this because this wasn't mentioned at all when the SE started

[green ember]

Server right now

https ://helios-i.mashable.com/imagery/articles/044TS2z8KMNE7XMtfQdi0Ia/hero-image.fill.size_1248x702.v1648070788.png

[vernal robin]

1. "shileded action quoted by ceo" != "building shielded appicataion" task acceptance criterias

2. shielded expedition was not about building awesome shielded app or finding the most criticial security vulnerability. It had many more tasks combined. having different rules for each category is not fair. all categories should be treated the same, whether it is strict requirements and many rejected sumbission or lower acceptance critereas with many approved submissions. I invested a lot of time and effort in building explorer for example because I believed it will be beneficial after the contest ends and because I wanted to build something nice and I thought this was the area I could contribute the most. Not because I wanted to witch hunt submissions that I subjectively and biased think are worse than mine.

3. shielded expedition reward pool is not optimal, I agree, but this was what everyone agreed on when started to participate. so why try to change the rules after the end ?

[supple prawn]

Of course "shileded action quoted by ceo" = "building shielded application" task acceptance criterias. It was Awa sun yin who wrote the rules of shielded expedition and who defined shielded action.

Fewer tasks completed by fewer people earn more points. This has been an accepted rule from the very beginning, so why do you object to it? Also, the re-evaluation I suggest for shielded apps is not about good/bad, it's all about fitting the definition or not. A tool is a tool, many tools are acceptable as long as there is no scoring. But the definition of shielded action is clear. Besides, I also worked hard for my explorer (namascan.com) so why would I want this category to be ignored?

so why try to change the rules after the end; everyone is telling me the same thing. i didn't change the rules, tell that to Gavin.

[austere rose]

Clearly S tasks 4-6 are being the one causing the controversy in terms of approval right now. As I said, if they are quality submissions they should be eligible for bounty all across since in this way they can be subjectively evaluated. Changing rules of acceptance post SE ending was the issue, since appeal is not allowed but some applications previously approved in this category were rejected. Now some users are allowed appeal and others aren’t and clear rules justifying their acceptance is not clear at all. The only way to end is to evaluate and remove these from SE. otherwise it’s unfair to anyone who got approved and then quietly got rejected.

[clear bridge]

Agree with you here

[fringe pawn]

I agree appeals should be in place. But I have to say, right now the calls to remove s4-6 are looking opportunistic (generally speaking of comments being made)

[stiff adder]

No, only S tasks 5-6 because only these ones had rules changed after SE ended. You didn't submit S4 or didn't have it approved and you want to cancel S4 now for your own benefit. There was no change for S4 after SE ended, all was clear for S4 before SE ended, we are discussing only S5-S6 that suffered the auditing after SE ended, dont put the S4 into the mix subtly for your own benefit

[austere rose]

lol, I see S4 being heavily debated here as well and again super diluted in terms for acceptance. I am not saying this because I didn’t submit, but because it’s been a cause of a lot of debate both before SE ended and after the restoring and reevaluations.

[left rover]

I don't think any submissions truly meet the requirements of S5 and S6. But it seems like some did meet S4, right? Although S4 is controversial, at least there is a general standard. Just some S4s need to be reconsidered imo...

[stiff adder]

Only hkey debating S4 still nobody else, this was debated weeks ago for a long time and Gavin told hkey many many times that S4 criteria was clear and approved submissions final, but hkey doesn't listen and keeps insisting trying to cancel most valid S4 so he can benefit and get more points, and since spidey didnt submit or get S4 approved tries to suggest cancelling S4 so can benefit from this

[fringe pawn]

the standard doesn't appear to have been applied so yes it needs reevaluation imo.

[supple prawn]

All they have to do is reject all submissions of ibc transfers. It won't even take an hour to do this. Everything is clear, no need for a 50 line list of rules like in other categories.

[austere rose]

Appeals will add 1 month or more easy and even then I am not sure it will all be done. What is the point of pushing this again this far. I agree with @dry flicker as well, that the large discrepancy in rewards between top 10 and bottom 90 is the cause of all of this debate and toxic back and forth attacking submissions. I respect anyone who has their S class submissions submitted, but this just getting too much out of hand with respect to clarity for approvals of other S5 and S6 evaluations have really been all over the place. As far as S4 goes, I still think it’s unclear but I guess team can decide and if it’s clear keep it. Removing the rewards discrepancy will also help but again, it’s the team choice. I can only propose.

[fair patio]

You know, I don't even find these ones the most problematic. I too read the "Shielded Application" task as it also allowing IBC shielded dApps.

The faucet submissions though? Dude...a faucet is naturally able to sent to a shielded address. That's literally just a transfer tx.

I played it safe though and also made a Shielded Swap one. I am still actually perplexed I managed to code all that in 3 days...my pride lowkey wants to open source it now already just for that reason lol.

[supple prawn]

When the final results were published we were told not to reject them, but you and a few others are still objecting to them. You have the right to object but we don't? What you are doing is selfish

[vernal robin]

well, Tim Berners-Lee invented www and thus related to all that's built on it. Should we use his quotes to evalute shielded expedition tasks ?

Fewer tasks completed by fewer people earn more points. This has been an accepted rule from the very beginning, so why do you object to it?
I don't object about it. I'm completely agree with it. I object that some categories are allowed to be deluted, while others became strict after the end of se. This should be revised: either apply restrictions to all categories or to none. Otherwise it's not fair.

A tool is a tool, many tools are acceptable as long as there is no scoring.
the reasoning to cancel many security valnerability / improving the protocol categories was that a lot of things could be accepted under the description. but it is exactly the same for building a tool. antyhing could be a tool, so this category is a loose bucket and everything should be revised.

nice explorer btw 😎

[fair patio]

The ones who got theirs reapproved again now are very borderline tho lol...if they're honest with themselves they should know this to be true for multiple reasons I do not want to express out publicly.

[stiff adder]

Yes, when the final results were published on the 11th when SE ended including for S4 we accepted that. When they mentioned the audit and no appeals we also accepted that. What we discuss is appeals done when this wasn't part of the announcements, don't mislead again, what you are doing is different, discussing S4 which had no changes after SE ended. To put it even more clear so you don't mislead, you are objecting S4 which was final and not changed when SE ended on the 11th, what others are objecting is the appeals of the audits which was never in the plan, two very DIFFERENT things

[austere rose]

I won’t blame him. Folks with approvals trying to denfend their ranking. This SE has made folks crazy selfish and also attacking other submissions since they want the lead and the bump in rewards with it. But yeah, it’s been a roller coaster of the bad kind so far. Approvals for S4 are only borderline barring 1-2 but everyone approving wants to defend their submissions 😅. If you are subjectively good, why not a subjective bounty so end the argument and benefit everyone and create fairness so long term users and validators will stick after SE ends. Set an example of fairness for all and not just a few

[barren pulsar]

guys stop fighting each other. propose a solution, give some ideas

[supple prawn]

Then we are arguing for the same thing; all categories should be evaluated equally.

[fringe pawn]

my proposition is simple:

1. reeval S4 according to the already stated criteria (and not hector's or hkey's or whoever else's preferences). that should make this category somewhat more right and tight.
2. keep s5 and s6 with possible small adjustments.
3. make sure nebb scores are calculated correctly (which tbh I don't think they are atm).
4. no strong opinion on uptime, but adjusting to a minimum where postgen have a fair chance of top category could be argued for
5. make sure there is an actual small appeals period
6. finish SE 🙂

[fair patio]

I'd honestly — and this would hurt my own position — think it to be best to revert back to before the comp ended. Fix the sybil issue, but don't even consider post reevaluations.

[thin drum]

As per the announcement,

"There's a one-week grace period for participants to verify the correctness of their submissions. This period is not for the purposes of appealing or arguing for/against submission approval, but for catching cases of human error (eg: information was incorrectly copied/missing from one sheet to another)."

So by next Monday all results should be final. Regardless if people agree with them or not.

No matter what it looks like a lot of people will keep fighting for corrections just to improve their spot by one or two places.

The sooner the SE ends the better.

[dry heart]

close SE and share 30M to 146k easier 🙂

[fringe pawn]

you'd like that huh:)

[stable oar]

In my case it could be the difference between #1 and #118.

[dry heart]

directly go to step 6 and create step 7 🫡

[austere rose]

lol, in case of most people actually. This is a never ending battle the way it is

[barren pulsar]

mine is :
1.revert back to when the acceptance threshold was low- that would help to dilute the points as much as possible for all tasks-
2. remove sybils and human errors.
3. for higher quality submissions, reward them with extra Bounty

[fringe pawn]

let's be real folks, there is still some cleaning up work that needs to be done, I don't see why obviously needed corrections can't still be carried out. that being said, yes this does need to end at some point

[dry heart]

1. close this thread today
2. release final result which removed sybils
3. public raw data
   @potent bronze @slender wave don't need to read anything here, do your plan

[narrow fable]

The problem, it seems, is that things have gotten biased. It’s not just about whether activities X and Y were approved or not, but about how the whole process was handled after the SE ended. They decided to audit Class S activities after the testnet was already over. As a result, many activities that were previously considered valid were rejected.

To make matters worse, all the details of the approved activities ended up in an email inbox.

I just regret that things have taken this turn. When a process that should be transparent starts showing signs of partiality, it’s hard to trust that the decisions being made are fair and balanced.

[stiff adder]

mine is:

1. Remove vulnerabilities and protocol improvements subcategories, reward this outside of SE with bounties
2. In current nebb with all C, B, A points already, remove all vulnerabilities and improvements tasks and add correctly the other four S class tasks as per the final WIP tab results. Also, separate the pools of roid for crew and pilots correctly
3. Remove sybils and publish final results today

[rigid crag]

Tomorrow is starting the weekend and anything other than publishing final results today. put all of us in this frustrating debate for more two days.

[left rover]

1.Cancel S5 and S6. Since no submissions truly meet the requirements, if any do, they must be very rare, and Team could publish all for transparency.
2.Keep S4. Team can reevaluate some controversial ones (quickly, as it won't take much time, since there are only about 20-30, and some are duplicates), or Team may choose to keep the current results. Either way, Team needs to speak up and provide a general standard (meeting this standard means approved).

[stable oar]

I sent a Security Vulnerability by e-mail. It was reviewed on the same day as Spork's last announcement, because the team's inbox had been inaccessible. After reviewing, my submission was considered not a Security Vulnerability. However, I believe a critical portion has been overlooked. One that can effectively, permanently halt the chain. I cannot disclose details at this time, but I have notified the reviewers.

[rare skiff]

1. remove all A, B, C and S tasks. 2. Reward people in reverse alphabetical order, starting with the letter Y. 3. Profit

[left rover]

Cool. When SE is really about to end, do it~@stable oar

[stable oar]

I did not want to disrupt the event for the reviewers and other players, but I have reproduced the proof of concept on a local chain. But if the team and players agree, we can do it as a closing event.

[naive pivot]

Just keep changing your name again and again.

[crisp tree]

Is it suppose to be Monday or today?

[rare skiff]

announcement was one week ago today

[clear bridge]

Pimom,tphat,megtaron, and now this

(Nah an individual just jeep changing name)

[low token]

True that should make it today right?. We're still seeing results today?

[dry heart]

are they a team ?

[rare skiff]

Results, no idea.. I'm betting on not 🤷🏻‍♂️

[crisp tree]

I wish to switch body with this gnosed guy

[clear bridge]

I wish to restart whol SE

[naive pivot]

Each time someone mentioned this, the current Cameraman just kept silence.

[clear bridge]

@pulsar plover any reason for keep changing Nam. 🤔

[naive pivot]

Oh, danh. I knew you would come out. Guess what, you guys like using multiple accounts to support each other, right? I will use one too, guess whoamI? This name sounds familiar?

Really? tphat2616? Mekong Labs? Nobita?

you know why =]]

Why do you think I am blackmailing you? Usually, this term is only used if you have done something. Besides, did I DM you? I said it in a public channel.

[fringe pawn]

this is wild

[naive pivot]

lol =]] =))) Yeah. I would keep my mouth shut like tphat2616.

Wow. Nobita is typing. Keep typing.

[clear bridge]

So you and tphat,makung.labs, Megatron, are the same person.?

[naive pivot]

When tphat2616 said the explorer source code from Mekong Labs was his, you didn't come even when others mentioned you. Now you suddenly appear without any mentions. Interesting.

[dry heart]

how you know? you are hidden camera?

[dry heart]

please keep it related unclear S class. "Do we have the final results today?" is important thing now 🥲

[clear bridge]

Was thinking this too loke no one even tag him hare then he came suddenly. 🤔

[naive pivot]

I don't understand. Are you saying tphat2616 is impersonating you and Mekong Labs?

[naive pivot]

This is related to unclear S class. Because these guys were keeping trolling in this channel.

[low token]

Results today?

[dry heart]

actually not,in my mind only final result related 🙏

[naive pivot]

=]] =))) lol

[clear bridge]

They are only here to troll others.

[gilded dome]

Can we expect results today @slender wave ?

[versed cedar]

Wow, what happened in here overnight 👀

[gilded dome]

Where can we see these proposals?

[thin drum]

|| Nobita 👀 ||

[frail nova]

What about him?

[clear bridge]

Juta read some above conversations.

[astral fern]

Has anyone gotten the score extractor working?

[stiff adder]

They use custom indexer so we can just study the code, but cant run it: 'the indexer is not the namada indexer, we planned to used namadaxer but it didn't support all the queries we had to do. core extractor code is opensource, it compiles and everything, but it requires a connection to a database with the indexer data to recompute the scores, so, we opensourced the code for people to see how their are computed'

[astral fern]

😲

[frail nova]

How's it going guys?

[stable oar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8JEm4d6Wu4

[frail nova]

If I now contribute an indexer to open source score, will I be rewarded?

[uncut beacon]

Yes, I think 😄

[gilded dome]

Results on Monday?

[sudden burrow]

one of the Mondays or Tuesdays, or Wednesdays, or Thursdays, or Fridays, low chances for Saturdays and Sundays 🤓

[dry heart]

we do SE again mate, it never end

[gilded dome]

@slender wave @potent bronze Can we sunset our infra like indexer, blockchain and explorer? Or do I need to keep them running

[frail nova]

I don't know when I liked the word "When" as much as I do today. “When” will there be points?

[cyan tusk]

Endless Love

[young hearth]

yes you can shut them down

[gilded dome]

Results today? 🤞🤞🤞

[mild badge]

🤷🏻‍♂️

[woven gull]

Hi @potent bronze , is there any new information?

[dry heart]

good project 🔥

[gray pendant]

any new?

[covert garden]

No annoucement = No news 😉

[frail nova]

There hasn't been any notification from the group after over a week of grace. I don't know how long to wait. Most are eagerly anticipating the final results after three months of work. @slender wave @potent bronze

[thin drum]

We're just not important enough to communicate with on a civil manner ig

[crisp tree]

We have to be patient

[young hearth]

patience is the 🔑 i think team also want to finish asap, but there is some hard decisions to make, thats why it takes so long....

[low token]

What kinds of decisions maybe we can help

[young hearth]

i think there is nothing that we can do at the moment