[Phase 1] HIP #49 Change of Arbitrator

[clesaege]

@jfdominguez.eth

@clesaege

PoH paid a total of 10 000$ to jurors, that is less than 1$ per registration. Putting UBI as a staking token will not significantly increase UBI price.

That amount was paid by individual people, not by Poh. In your view is like the registrant´s errors paid for the whole registry. Maybe I misexpressed myself, the motivation is not UBI price, is to have a diverse registry, also baing the first experience in crypto for people who needs help and not risking big amounts on jurors.

Sure, in the current design, individuals who are rejected pays for the security of the registry (maintaining a healthy challenger ecosystem).
Actually when we started studying systems like TCR, we were scarred that there wouldn’t be enough rejections to incentivize a challenger ecosystem and with the guys of Truebit studied the concept of forced errors:
Put wrong submissions on purpose in order to incentivize a challenger ecosystem. Note that in the context of PoH it would require some fees from participants even when submissions are accepted.

However we found out that we didn’t even need forced errors, as people being humans made errors without even being asked, so the challenger ecosystem ending up being funded without any forced error scheme.

We could discuss introducing a registration fee and forced errors while relaxing the policy strictness. But note that it would result in a higher average cost per user.

Note that none of this is dependent of the arbitrator.

@jfdominguez.eth

Maybe was an interpretation mistake, but calling “greedy” only because you don´t understand the motivation is one of the things that make me think we are not really aligned. If you think this is about greed or money you are not listening enough to the community.

A “greedy fork” is a fork where someone replace one token with his own. That is the term we used when discussing the Aragon fork and it is made to contrast with regular forks (like ETH with ETC, BTC with BCH or Kleros forks described in the whitepaper).

@jfdominguez.eth

As I mentioned in the first point, I believe that Kleros has as its objective the valorization of the PNK

So if someone wants to put the UBI token it’s not for the price, but if someone wants to keep PNK (which funded the project) it’s because of wanting to increase its price. I don’t get this double standard.

@jfdominguez.eth

Again, this money is not being paid by PoH is being paid by humans trying to register in a registry

Humans (or fake humans who will fail registration) pays Proof Of Humanity which in turn pays jurors (20%) and challengers (80%).
I understand that people do not like much losing money, but it is necessary for someone to pay for the challenger ecosystem. Otherwise people would attack it and PoH would be useless. Seeing that some large scale farming has gone undetected for sometime, I’m not even sure that the challenger ecosystem is enough incentivized.
Even people who fail their first registration ends up net positive just with the UBI they get (180$ over the 2 years registration period while the lost deposit is 130$). Note that gas fees may change that, but with V2, gas fees should become negligible (and deposits would also lower).
A way to increase the net profit of registered humans would be to increase what is given to registered humans like having them getting more airdrops.
Lowering security would make the registry less attractive, thus less likely to be used to receive airdrops.

@jfdominguez.eth

@clesaege

That isn’t true, using a separate token will prevent mutualization of the security. The UBI marketcap is extremely low (0.5M) and attacks on it would be way easier than attacks on PNK.

Answering FUD question.

This isn’t FUD. This is discussing security concerns and arguing that PoH currently benefits from mutualized economic security and removing that would make it less secure.