Incentivize better, more responsible vouching

Proof of Humanity
#1

I’ve seen many cases of vouchers clearly not reviewing profiles before giving them their vouch.
I.e. registrations vouched with videos with a completely different eth address.

Since this has a severe impact in the quality of submissions and also represents a substantial economic loss for the human which by mistake sent an incorrect submission. I believe stronger incentives should be put in place to increase voucher responsibility.

So, following the criteria of removing voucher profiles who vouch for malicious registrations, what about temporarily (lets say, for a week) lowering/stopping the accruing rate for vouchers who vouched for a human that has been removed for incorrect submission?

I believe this, together with properly explaining it in the UI, would definitely incentivize better scrutiny from vouchers to vouchees prior to giving it.

[Phase 2] HIP 48 - Removal of Clement Lesaege as mission board member
[Phase 2] HIP 48 - Removal of Clement Lesaege as mission board member
#2

The UI already shows a warning for people vouching. People vouching for submissions which are rejected for “Duplicate” and “Does not exist” are removed from the registry which leads to a loss of UBI.
So I would say that your proposal is in some form already implemented.

We also discussed of fines in addition (i.e. sum bad vouchers would need to pay before being re-accepted in the registry) which could increase its impact.

[Phase 1] HIP XX - Removal of Clement Lesaege as mission board member
[Phase 1] HIP XX - Removal of Clement Lesaege as mission board member
[Phase 2] HIP 48 - Removal of Clement Lesaege as mission board member
#3

Yes, when I said “properly explaining it in the UI” I was referring to the explaining of my proposal alone.
As in, if my proposal of lowering accrued ubi for bad vouchers was to be implemented, it should be clearly explained in the UI at the moment of vouching a new human.

I am aware of the removal penalty for malicious vouching (dup/non existent) and I think that’s the correct approach, my proposal was aimed specifically to the “incorrect submission” scenario which right now doesn’t have any consequence for bad vouchers and it’s where I observed several cases lately and I see some lack of responsability from vouchers.

#4

Well the thing is that “Incorrect submission” has a lower risk than other causes for rejection.
First it’s more likely to get caught as an “incorrect submission” is self-contained and doesn’t require referencing other submission (like in case of duplicate) nor specialized work (ex: using a deepfake detector for “does not exist”). That why, it doesn’t lead to the penalization of the vouchers.
We could also give a UBI penalty but currently the extra gas cost may not be worth it.

1 Like
#5

The main problem I see with this type of “careless vouching” on low risk (for the registry) submissions, is that they cause a significant economic loss to the submitter, 0.157 eth is a lot of money in many places.

#6

Would it be possible with the current contract to remove a person ability to vouch when a profile is rejected for incorrect submission?

And then reinstate it with a “proof of burn” of UBI.