Hello, my name is Pedro. I entered PoH from day 1. Since yesterday I have my account pending to remove, the problem was that I filmed my video mirrored and my Ethereum address was reversed. Undoubtedly an involuntary technical error and that should not discredit my humanity. The debate that I bring, and assuming my mistake that costs me the loss of my account, is how challengers and jurors of Kleros work. After going through various groups, and talking to various people, I have come to the conclusion that there are several things that should be changed. First is the rigidity with which the jurors act before a challenge, I think there should be a space for sensitivity and that people can correct minor errors, since it is a great effort when a deposit is made and lose everything for something minimal. After speaking with several jurors, I see that the economic incentive may be above these changes, I have also found that several of those who challenge are also jurors, I believe that here there is a lack of ethics and the lack of transparency for decisions. Although there are several who agreed that there are changes to be made, I think it must be taken into account that this type of errors from a mirrored video or even a handwritting that may not be so legible will happen frequently. More being the public that is aimed. It should be seen how there is a penalty, if you want, but not the total loss of the account. Speaking with people we participate in a forum I am left with a phrase: "Without the intention of being philosophical … we will be creating new systems that are … worse than the current ones? Do these economic incentives encourage less flexibility and more authoritarianism? of the rules to the letter instead of more humane behavior? " On the other hand, UBI seeks to reach those with the least resources. It is very likely that these kinds of errors will occur and end up expelling those who should be the greatest beneficiaries; That’s what I mean when I say stay in the letter of the norm vs. Interpret the letter of the rule. Any judgment requires interpreting the regulatory framework. In itself, regardless of whether they believe that I am on my case, luckily I will not have a problem creating a new account. But it seems to me that if we have a chance to demonstrate humanity, it should also be in the way those who are running their account are judged. That there are penalties, and also rewards for finding errors, but I believe that they can be% smaller and that they do not take the account of a person who only had an error, either for not reading well or perhaps for ignorance. Now, I don’t want to focus or exclude myself from my mistake, but I think it is something that for people who may not have the opportunity to appeal or re-create an account, it can be very discouraging about this project. More than anything my idea is to be able to debate it, and if necessary, if I am wrong, at least listen to other opinions.
I think that Pedro has several good points.
In first place, if the same person can act as challenger to a profile and as juror to decide that same challenge, the system should be reviewed. Also, I understand that the Kleros system does not allow the owner of the profile being challenged to defend him or herself; this should also be reviewed.
In second place, Pedro’s proposal of gradually increasing the penalty makes a lot of sense. In most of the jurisdictions where individuals who should benefit the most from UBI live, 0.157 ETH is A LOT of money and if we believe that UBI should reach the less fortunate, we should try to avoid unnecessary access barriers. I am not proposing to ignore mirrored addresses or blurry videos, but to issue a warning in those cases instead of confiscating the ETH deposit in full. We should try to level the playground in order to make access to UBI easier for those that UBI is meant to be.
Human error is proof of humanity.
The issue will rules-based governance rather than principles-based governance is that it creates outcomes that are not human. All governance should pass the ‘is this human?’ test. Much of it at the moment is robotic which creates outcomes like this. Fundamentally this creates unnecessary costs for those that can least afford it. For me, that misses the point of what is being built here. Accounting for human variance like this will create more anti-fragility in the system. If things are too perfect and similar it is a fairly good sign that the system is being attached. The current rule frameworks create potential fragility in the system. Yes, I’m sure that it is technically more difficult to build this way but for me that is the point of keeping the system so human it is difficult to hack.
Yes, it’s fair. Read the rules and make sure your submission is in compliance before submitting. If you can change the facts of the case after the challenger makes his deposit, how is that fair to the challenger?
Haha, nice one. No computer would ever make that mistake… unless it was programmed to. Or it was an AI that learned to make mistakes to be “more human”.
I was under the impression - wrong apparently - if evidence is submitted against you then you have a period to update you submission to correct such errors. I guess I read it wrong, maybe it was you have a period to challenge challenges for their validity. Reversed image is sadly not an invalid challenge.
The real problem here is ETH gas fees. If it does not cost $20, $30, $40 a time to resubmit no one would be bothered by having a trivial error cause a rejection with a trivial resubmission fee. Making things more flexible is just a workaround for the gas fee expense to submitters, but then they hurt challengers who legitimately find an error but who have to pay gas to make a challenge.
For mirror reversal issues the submission process could do OCR and see if it can determine a valid ETH address, ask the submitter for confirmation of what it see - or correction if it doesn’t see - all before a gas fee is paid. This should weed out a few issues like that and be a stop gap until ETH fixes it’s gas fee problem or other blockchains like Cardano / Cosmos / Polkadot with less usury gas fees are supported.
PNK, As your name expresses it, you are part of the jury (at least you have money on pnk), and I feel, perhaps erroneously, that you are not debating what I have written, only putting the obvious and not what I am questioning. Thank you in advance for taking the time.
I believe that the problem is that PNK_Brahmin believes that all UBI users have the same knowledge and opportunities. It will be very difficult for UBI to reach those who really need it as long as an elite of challengers are avidly seeking for mistakes in registration. Nonetheless, PNK_Brahmin has a good point; challengers also have to make a deposit to challenge and risk that deposit if the challenge is not correct. There should be some intermediate alternative for those who made an honest mistake; a difference should be made between a deep fake and a human error…
I feel like PNK_Brahmin is approaching this more from a juror PoV. As a juror myself we require clear guidelines with minimal subjectivity in order for rulings to be consistent. If we allow for more leeway or subjectivity it decreases the chances of potential parties challenging registrations, because it’s not worth the risk. Furthermore different sets of jurors will judge cases in different ways which decreases trust in the system.
Ultimately, what would greatly help is scalability in that, challenges and registrations will be cheaper. And as a result we could potentially lower the registration fee.
How hard is it to make sure your profile is in compliance? The rules are available to everyone and it is very easy to make an unquestionable submission that would never be scrutinized. With that much money for the deposit, I would triple check everything, yet they do not. I have no sympathy for people who cannot follow simple rules.
Note that the loss of deposits should be enough to incentivize people to watch the list for incorrect submissions.
If the rate of challenge is lowered, the deposit will need to be increased to keep compensating people guarding the list (like 1% challenge and 1 ETH deposit would bring the same revenue to challengers than 10% challenges and 0.1ETH deposit). I think it’s better to keep the deposit low instead of the challenge rate low.
PNK, I insist, they are not the rules, they are technical problems that should not be judged in the same way. On the other hand, I am not saying that the incentive to make a challange is lost, but that the fines are proportionally different. You can penalize someone with a mistake by giving the challenger a% but letting them fix that glitch without losing their humanity record. UBI and POH is a project that aims at a type of public, if it is a help and a benefit that has no limits as far as it can go, it should not punish minimum errors, it should help to be able to avoid them and move forward. It shouldn’t be an incentive to hunt people for money.
I totally agree with Pedro that deleting accounts and enriching overly greedy jurors is not in the general interest. An option should allow a warning before the challenge and allow the replacement of the photo or video in case of common and minimal errors
A first warning system would be very useful to reducing the event of having their account removed while reducing lost of funds and improving the user experience. Kleros should be there as a defense against people who have been acknowledged of their error and are attempting to continue to push through it which signifies malicious intent.
I think there is a HIP we should vote for this changes
That’s called Conflict of Interest, or self-dealing. Extremely important point.
There is at least two that I have authored, one moving to phase 3 and another in phase 1.
I understand the spirit of these types of threads. It is sad to lose a deposit because of a rule violation. But the energy is focusing on the effect, rather than the cause.
We could dilute the incentive for challenging but in the end that will only threaten the entire registry. It should remain a clear system where a competent challenger can determine validity of a registration request. A clean, clear set of rules must always be the goal.
Instead of trying to change the effect of not following the rules, I believe we could apply effort to the user experience of making the submissions less error prone. Please see this post. If something like this was the experience the OP would have been forced to watch his video and type out the eth address. Empowering the user is key with dapps.
I agree that the incentive of challengers is a key part of the registry.
But your example ignores growth. 10% of challenges would hurt organic growth (more vocal detractors). You could generate more challenger revenue (incentive) by lowering the total % of challenges because it may increase the number of new registrations (shifting detractors towards promoters).
As a used car salesman I may be able to make 40% by ripping off a few people in the community. But if I operate legitimately, earn 10%, and that reputation brings me 10x more customers I come out ahead.
Getting more people only marginally affect challenger profitability. The most important is the reward per submission examined.
In the future do you feel most examinations will be performed manually by a human? I imagine a large portion will be by automated bots picking out both malicious submissions and technical errors. As the potential total profit is higher it will attract more talented competition that build for example ML algorithms to be faster than manual reviewers. In that case, challenger profitability is tied to the reward per submission examined but other variables like speed (how fast my bot compared to others and how many it can examine per second). Here quantity of submissions would have more than a marginal impact.