outstanding AMA questions/concerns

[leaden bramble]

.

[placid gorge]

Not a Q but a consideration for Namada team:

Uptime issue has been beaten to death and i see team is trying to play fair. Only comment i would like to add is it's ok to remove uptime if not everyone can achieve it, however to keep it also fair to people who worked really hard to keep SE running by achieving high uptime, their efforts should be rewarded proportionately i.e. uptime reward should be inline with possible SE rewards. Just asking team to be fair to both sides.

[plucky karma]

" their efforts should be rewarded proportionately i.e. uptime reward should be inline with possible SE rewards"

I agree with that! I'm not in the top 25 because of the uptime removal, and I think missing 200k $NAM because of this decision is unfair to me (and others who have been negatively impacted) and beneficial for the people who are in the top 25 and shouldn't have been there, as not everyone encountered problems...

[leaden bramble]

YES! those with high uptime will be rewarded outside of the Shielded Expedition, and we'll provide an update with specifics ASAP

[mortal locust]

Well, you missed 200k, we missed 500k NAM because of the uptime removal😅

[leaden bramble]

let's stay on topic

If your question was missed, please use this thread to repost it. If you missed the AMA, please read through it carefully, and if you have a question/concern that was not already addressed, post in this thread. Please nothing else.

[sonic sentinel]

Hi Gavin!
I discovered the reason for the change in our rating.
"Finding Security vulnerabilities" was rejected with the comment “issue identified previously on Feb 13, this submission was Feb 25”.
May I ask if this vulnerability was published in detail before my application was submitted?
We discovered this problem while working on our explorer ( explorer75 ), independently of other people's work.
The task was to receive information from the node, in addition to the documented capabilities of CometBFT and I managed to stop my RPC node by a random request during debugging.
Then the situation was investigated and a report was made in NEBB, which has a link to the code with specific requests that cause the node to fail.
Yesterday I found another member's report dated 2/13/02. There was a comment, “ABCI query DoS issue.”
If this is all the published information about this vulnerability, then besides the fact that we didn't know about this report, it's not detailed enough.
Our report was detailed and had a sample code. We could not copy the information about this vulnerability and use it.
I believe that if there was no information about a specific vulnerability in the public domain, then our application should not be rejected because we found it independently.
I still can't tell if this is a single error or if there were several and they all fall under the description “DoS json-rpc issue”...
I was planning to develop our Explorer. This work is interesting, and gives the feeling that you can make some useful contribution, but the current situation with the results of the testnet, do not allow to do it. All results on which we spent a lot of effort have been canceled (uptime task, S-class Finding Security vulnerabilities).
I ask the team to take the time to look into this issue, I would like to see a fair assessment of our work.

[undone birch]

Is the team working hard preparing the mainnet or are you enjoying your vacation now?

[plain mantle]

What is wrong with you?

[mortal locust]

@leaden bramble you mentioned 'not dealt with:
Governance proposal task completion concern with assymetries in NAAN distribution', why uptime is dealt with and governance not? There were very true assymetries issues also with governance, and numerous reports of people unable to vote because the faucet was not working? Why governance gets the green light despite concerns while uptime is quickly buried? Not cool

[undone birch]

？ Isn't it AMA?

[leaden bramble]

i marked the governance concern in the hackmd as 'not dealt with' so Christopher knew what to reply to

i agree that there were flaws with governance-related missions. idk what you're talking about here, but it seems like you're equivocating between two different issues.

and not sure what you're talking about re: green light and burying stuff, but i hope you understand that at some point i'll need to start ignoring your messages bc so often they have been long, numerous, and seemingly written in bad faith

(which is frustrating, because some of your criticism has been really helpful, but a lot of it seems to be misleading)

[mortal locust]

Sorry Gavin, but hope you understand that losing suddenly 500k NAM because of a last minute uptime removal is not easy to digest. But it is fine, we spent enough time on this and won't bother you more, you decide whatever you want. Just hoping the rewards for uptime and foundation delegation will make us feel a bit less that we wasted so many months, thanks and have a nice week

[leaden bramble]

the flaws in the SE have been frustrating and we've seen the unwavering dedication. we've put aside / paused a number of our initiatives for mainnet and spent a lot of time and attention working on a path to try to minimize the likelihood of participants having wasted their time because so many people have invested so much effort in the SE

[mortal locust]

Well, let's point out another major flaw: we are 11th with 8.1 billion roids and achieved 99% uptime, shielding app and protocol improvement with a PR even fixing the issues we found, we get 233k NAM (encipher 8.3 billion roids and gets 500K NAM more). Some ranked around 25th, with no uptime, no shielding app, no vulnerability or protocol improvement, just spam proposal voting, also get 233k NAM. This tiers idea was absolutely terrible, there is over 4 billion roids point difference between us 11th and the 25th ranked🤦‍♂️ From the 100th to 26th there is around 2 billon roids difference, but from the 25th to 11th over 4 billion roids difference, more than double. I propose something better so you can land the plane a bit better: there is 15x233K NAM for the tier 2, instead of giving the same to all, share it proportional to the amount of roids -> ((15x233k)/(total roids in tier 2))x(roids of each pilot in tier 2) to get the NAM prize for each pilot

[mortal locust]

@leaden bramble There were issues with gov voting also voting duration is 2 epochs but we were able to vote on 1 epoch only next epoch we got vp issues. We got this issue while voting with non-validator account. I think we got this issue during entire SE, you can check the issue related messages on discord se-100 group during the first week. Why if there were also bugs related with governance and not all participants could compete for the governance tasks, governance is kept unchanged? There are many reports also of people unable to vote when the faucet was not working for an extended period of time. Is it ethical to ignore all these issues for governance while addressing them for uptime?

1. The faucet did not work, so the validator could not vote on the proposal with a voting period of epoch3 to epoch4.
2. @wind sapphire then manually send to tokens.
3. In epoch 4, some validators received token and tried bonding as a non-validator account.
4. Bonding takes place in the next epoch, so can vote starting from epoch5. In the end, neither validators nor non-validator account could vote on proposals whose voting deadline was epoch 4.
   So these validators could vote on 90%+ of proposals, but 99%+ was not achievable. Full details and evidence on the forum, please review at the earliest, thanks: https://forum.namada.net/t/concerns-about-uptime-mission-removals/665/16 Honestly these are much better reasons to remove governance, since for uptime there were ways to avoid getting jailed while for governance there was no way to get tokens to vote for many proposals

[bronze iron]

@lilac ginkgo You have Anoma and you have Namada. Major public investments were made in Anoma. Does this mean that this investment is made in Namada? Can we consider these to be the same project? If not, it turns out that Anom will also have a token in the future; if so, then what might it be needed for?

[lilac ginkgo]

@bronze iron in response to your question:

I work on a project called Anoma and a project called Namada - I wouldn't say that I have or own them, though, I'm just a contributor (same goes for Heliax). Backers who have SAFTs (contracts) with the Anoma Foundation have contracts which only state an obligation for us to propose an Anoma genesis block that includes allocations to those backers, the contracts do not mention Namada, which started a bit after at least the first backers joined anyways. For further context on this history, I recommend Awa's blog post - https://mirror.xyz/awasunyin.eth/crGJ-CLwYKvDHDY24yIAra-f2eZHdpT_myBzPrvXAPY.

The genesis block that the Anoma Foundation plans to propose for Namada will include some allocations to backers, in addition to allocations to RPGF drop recipients, RPGF recipients, and various contributors. The entire Namada genesis block proposal is just of our own volition, we have no contracts which constrain us to propose a genesis block with particular contents (but, obviously, anyone could choose to run a different genesis block if they don't like the one we propose).

Does that help answer your question?

[bronze iron]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I’ll describe what I saw and why I had these questions - in the community they write like this Anoma (Namada) or another variant Namada (Anoma) attracted so much money in such and such rounds of financing... That is, in essence, Anoma’s investments are equated to investments in Namada, which is very confusing. Therefore, I wanted to clarify whether the investment in Namadu was separate, or whether the NAM token will be bundled with the Anoma token for investors. Are there any investments for Namad separately from Anom? If this is not confidential information, I will be glad if you explain this point. In any case, I'll be looking forward to the blog on tokenomics.

[lilac ginkgo]

I see. I think it depends on what you mean by "investment". No one has given money to the Anoma Foundation in exchange for contracts promising NAM token allocations, so in that sense no one has invested in Namada separately. It's possible that people who gave us money expected token allocations even though there were no contracts, I can't say. Many folks may have committed their time (e.g. in the Shielded Expedition) in hopes and expectations of token allocations in a genesis block proposal. I would consider that an investment of sorts, although not one of fiat money.

The Anoma Foundation plans to make two distinct genesis block proposals - one, very soon, for Namada, and one, much later, for Anoma - and those proposals will have different allocations, so in that sense there are two distinct tokens. In the future, it's possible that the tokens could converge, create mutual credit, or do other interesting cryptoeconomic things, but those decisions are up to the community and governance over time, not specifically up to us.

Does that help?

[bronze iron]

Yes, it's clear now. Thanks for your time and answers, Christopher.

[brisk bolt]

So anoma will be a separate chain at some point?

[jagged shadow]

@lilac ginkgo I just read your answer here
#shielded-expedition message

But Gavin said there is no plan for collecting passports. Hope there is a plan considering participants privacy.

[brisk bolt]

I would assume kyc needs to take place but guess we can add this to the list of questions left unanswered.

[mortal locust]

@lilac ginkgo @leaden bramble According to the Shielded Expedition T&Cs (https://anoma.foundation/shielded-expedition-terms-and-conditions) US persons are not allowed to participate and VPN are not allowed to circumvent this. We are still gathering more evidence but believe some pilots in the Top 10 broke this rule of the Shielded Expedition and therefore should be disqualified?

'Participant is a non-U.S. person as defined in Rule 902 (k)(2) of Regulation S under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933. No directed selling efforts (as defined in Rule 902(c) of Regulation S) were made in the United States, and the Participant is not receiving any tokens hereunder for the account or benefit of any U.S. Person(s);'

'Participant will not use a VPN or other tool to circumvent any geoblock or other restrictions that the Foundation may have implemented for participants in the Testnet Program. Any circumvention or violation will permanently disqualify the respective Participant from participation in the Testnet Program;'

[bronze iron]

Do you want to get into the top 10 with all your might or what? 🤔 Rules are rules, but in crypto these rules about prohibited jurisdictions are a formality. To prove compliance, a kyc is carried out.

[brisk bolt]

agree, this is distasteful to say the least

[pastel sonnet]

this is crazy

[mortal locust]

Ah, so sybils forbidden in the T&Cs is also a 'formality'? Also, that in the T&Cs is about being a US person, not about territories, you can live outside the US and being a US person with US passport

[mortal locust]

Are you a US person?

[pastel sonnet]

nope I live in Kurdistan

[ashen sable]

👀

[jagged shadow]

Dude your words are really toxic. You are doing anything to be in top 10. Anytime you can't you choose another toxic way. Act in a mature way

[bronze iron]

I'm talking about the fact that a person can live in the USA, but at the same time he is a citizen of India, for example. As then? This rule states that a person with a certain citizenship does not have the right to apply for awards, but all this can only be determined after kyc/

[mortal locust]

I am just copying what is written in the Shielded Expedition T&Cs it is not my words

[mortal locust]

The SE team checked IPs and other data to remove sybils, they could also use this data to identify potential US person and those potentially US person they could ask for proof that they are not US person for example

[bronze iron]

I’m just sure that you wouldn’t do all this if you were in the top 10. You’re just now trying to find an opportunity to somehow remove someone from the top 10 or raise your roids to the top 10. In any case case, it's your right. But you need to accept victory and defeat with honor.

[jagged shadow]

You say you are gathering info about 10 top people in pilot what a shame

[mortal locust]

There is no honor in removing uptime in last minute and changing all rules after SE ended, with correct rules we are in top 10 100%, we had s5 approved with PR fixing issues, s4 and uptime. And for governance check the forum, many couldn't vote in plenty of proposals because faucet was not working and were waiting for Adrian to send tokens. For uptime some managed to solved issues and get uptime, for governance for some was really impossible to vote in many proposals, so governance should be removed with much more reason than uptime

[bronze iron]

Well look. I managed to complete tasks related to shielded transactions between shielded addresses. But this task was deleted because this function broke and someone didn’t have time to do it, but I did and I was credited with roids for it (I’m 100% sure of this, because I followed the change in roids. But I don’t argue with this decision because I understand , that the team has the final decision. This is their competition and we play by their rules. And if my memory serves me correctly, the rules you refer to state that they can change anything and whenever they want, they can even cancel it. awards and we can't do anything about it.

[mortal locust]

Ok, yes it says that in the T&Cs, also says sybils forbidden AND also says US persons forbidden. I don't see anything saying some parts of the T&Cs are valid and others no

[bronze iron]

@leaden bramble Sorry for the discussion in this thread, I just noticed that this thread is for questions. forgot about it

[brisk bolt]

which in itself is pretty dodgy ngl, if it pertains to their personal information.

[brisk bolt]

this is so disingenuous

[mortal locust]

I don't have time to identify participants violating the T&Cs and this is not a task for participants, identifying sybils or participants from prohibited jurisdictions is for the SE team and Anoma foundation to do

[lucid cliff]

Hector being Hector again

[lyric thistle]

holy crap... why do we have all that discussion here... one person is trying to do whatever he can to defame others and get higher, what a shame...

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

[brisk bolt]

just leaving as a note here, gavin, that the indexer you linked in response to the remark that it would be nice to have access to the in-house indexer on SE, is not the version they used for SE, as per remarks by fraccaman on git when I asked (and can't be used for SE as I understand it). I understand why it's impractical to give us access to indexer, but wanted to just be precise that it hasn't been provided.

[leaden bramble]

correct

[leaden bramble]

after the Sybils i think we're good to finish the SE, i don't know of any outstanding processes

[leaden bramble]

ah! thanks, i will ask about this

[brisk bolt]

any idea of timeframe approx?

[bronze iron]

Gavin cleverly avoids this question and others like it😂

[leaden bramble]

yeahh every time i try to estimate something i'm wrong 🙈

[leaden bramble]

i'd like for this to be tomorrow when i imagine that the Nebb will update

[brisk bolt]

that would be great, but if we are not sure uptime and signatures have been even calculated correctly, I think we should make sure of that first

[lucid cliff]

but uptime does not affect the score anymore, so why is it important?

[brisk bolt]

it affects the two c-classes still in. (and maybe a third)

"initialize your validator post-genesis" (maybe)
"become part of the validator set for at least one epoch" (probably)
"start your validator as quickly as possible after upgrade height" (very likely)

[leaden bramble]

i think if signed blocks aren't counted, it would mean that player would not be credited for:

1. initialize your validator post-genesis for post-genesis validators | start your validator within 5 mins for genesis validators
2. become part of validator set for at least one epoch
3. start your validator as quickly as possible after hard fork

[brisk bolt]

that's what I would assume too. except number 1 is only for genesis. assuming you mean the post-genesis task, it depends on whether they simply track the init transaction or if they actually track signed blocks

[zealous oracle]

Do I understand correctly that there are plans to remove 3 more tasks that you just mentioned from final calculations?

[brisk bolt]

don't think anyone has talked of removing those tasks, at least that's not my thought here