Challenges and removals - ¿it's always fair?

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

I think bots will detect potential duplicates but will have quite a high false positive rate so humans will ultimately be the ones challenging or not.

My theory: the blockchain tail is wagging the user-experience dog.

In other words, the UBI and PoH Solidity code is a marvelous achievement of blockchain programming purism. From the initial submission to the vouching, everything happens on the 'chain.

But if one was to design a UBI user experience that was compassionate and a pleasure to use, it’d look nothing like the current app.

1 Like

Hi guys, it also happend to me :persevere:! my girlfriend submit the video with the wrong paper orientation and now someone challenged her. Is there any way to solve this, without losing my deposit of eth?

1 Like

I’m interested to know the impact on her. How much is the deposit as a percent of e.g. her rent or monthly income?

For me it ($700) was one half of a month’s rent for my Denver Colorado apartment.

But I’m sorry, I don’t know of a way to protect her deposit.