Proposal for making appeals to proven triplets

Golden Protocol
#1

The author, who does not agree with the results of the validator check, sends an appeal to the incorrectly checked triple.

Appeal goes to 5 validators
3 validators are randomly selected from the top 100 validators 2 validators are selected from the Golden team

image
image837×279 20 KB

Economics and validation steps:

  1. Author has “-” 6 points for reject triple;
  2. Disagreeing author submits an appeal - sends an appeal for re-validation;

3.1 With a negative check, the trio is rejected! the author is removed “-” 6 points
“+” 1 point is transferred to each validator from the top 100, 3 points in total.
“+” 1 point is transferred to the validator from the Golden team, total 2 points
“+” 1 point returned to the treasury Golden

3.2 With a positive check - the triple is accepted!
The author is returned “+” 6 points for the triple “+” 6 points additionally
Points “-” 6 are deducted from all validators that rejected the correct triple (for example, if there are 5 validators: total 30 points - 6 points = 24 points)
“+” 1 point is transferred to each validator from the top 100 (3 validators), 3 points in total. (for example, if there are 5 validators: 24 points - 3 points = 21 points)
“+” 1 point is transferred to the validator from the Golden team (2 validators), total 2 points (for example, if there are 5 validators: 21 points -2 points = 19 points)
“+” 19 points, the rest is returned to the Golden treasury (for example, if there are 5 validators: 19 points will return to the Golden treasury)

3.3. A defense mechanism to exclude Validators’ game elements in case the validating validators collude. If the 3 Validators considering the appeal from the top 100 do not honestly accept or reject the threes submitted for the appeal. But the Golden team has a different opinion than the 3 top 100 validators. Then additional penalty points are deducted from 3 top 100 validators
“-” 6 points, 1 validator top 100
“-” 6 points, 2 validator top 100
“-” 6 poitons, 3 validator top 100

Total
Appellant to the author
returns “+” 6 points per triple “+” 6 points additionally. Points “-” 6 are withheld from all validators who rejected the correct triple

3.1.1. With a negative check (if the game mechanics of valitors were applied during the appeal), the trio was rejected! the author is removed “-” 6 points
“-” 6 points are removed from each validator from the top 100 (3 validators), total 18 points.
“+” 3 points are given to the validator from the Golden team (2 validators), total 6 points
“+” 18 points returned to the Golden treasury, total 24 -6 =18 points ( 6 author points + 18 validator points - 6 points of Golden team validators).

3.1.2. With a positive check (if the game mechanics of valitors were applied during the appeal) - the trio is accepted!
“+” 6 points are returned to the author for the triple “+” 6 points additionally (for example, if there are 5 validators: total 30 points - 6 points = 24 points)
“-” 6 points are removed from each validator from the top 100 (3 validators), total 18 points.
“+” 3 points are given to the validator from the Golden team (2 validators), total 6 points
“+” 36 points returned to Golden treasury (24 points +18 points from appeal validators - 6 points from Golden validators = 36 points)

It is also necessary to freeze points for all Validators for 3 months for the period of appeal of authors who disagree with the accepted triples.

Be sure to indicate the 90-day appeal countdown counter.

#2

It seems to me that the mechanics are very complicated.
Something easier is needed. And that this applies to all users, or only team, and not a random set of validators.

1 Like
#3

Validators from the Golden team have control weight

#4

It seems there are some inconsistencies in your idea. For example involving Golden team for appeals reviewing. First of all, the idea of decentralisation gets broken at that point (as the Golden team has the control weight, not the community), but okay, lets skip this for a while. Main question here is why do we need 3 independent validators from top 100 if their votes are simply not counted, when 2 Golden validators have the same vote (it’s 99.9% of all cases, as they are guided by the same rules).
Moreover I dont understand what stands behind the idea of exactly -6 points penalty for validators who validated triple for the first time (why not -1/-2/…/-99). Even gtt fail gets you a penalty of only 5 points.

And the thing that worries me the most. What about the cases, where the triple accept/reject was correct at the moment of the first validating, but at the moment of creating appeal something changed. For example the CEO of company has changed, thouhgh it was legit at the moment of first validating. After some time the CEO of the company changes, and someone (who rejected this triple) is filing an appeal and all the validators who accepted this triple get a penalty for no reason. Or some official website has changed domain, some address/phone of company has changed, literally anything can lead to unfair penalty for validators.

#5

Is there any information at the moment, are team members conducting validation? Who exactly from the team will deal with the analysis of appeals on an ongoing basis?

Moreover, there is talk in the community about bots/artificial intelligence that could potentially be developed for validation.

#6

There is no official information about whether members of the Golden team are validating. When creating an appeal, a validator from the Golden team is critical. AI can also be wrong, it is necessary to implement appeals.

#7

I absolutely support the idea of an appeal, but until the bugs and shortcomings are fixed, until the problem of multi-accounting is solved, it is obviously too early for us to discuss the emergence of an appeal.

1 Like