I would like to clarify before beginning my post that this does not concern the “challenge request” feature for pending registrations. This concerns the “request removal” feature for already registered profiles.
I have noticed a flaw in the incentivization for removal requests of an already registered profile. Removal requests follow the same policies as the pre-acceptance submission challenges, however they differ in the fact that there is no deposit in reserve by default since a registered profile has already had the submission deposit released upon successful registration.
This creates an issue in removal request incentivization because if a request removal is made and the other side of the request does not match the deposit, the good faith requester is financially penalized by having his removal request deposit returned to him minus gas. In this case, the requester would have “won” with the registration being removed and the PoH registry integrity being preserved, but have lost financially.
There are many such cases where a request removal deposit would not be matched by a rational actor, such as an obvious error like an incorrect ETH address in the video that slipped by the pending registration phase and made it to being fully registered. Kleros has always ruled against incorrect ETH addresses, so any rational person confronted with the request removal would not match the deposit, resulting in an ultimate financial loss for the requester because of a default judgment.
I hope that we can address this problem and properly incentivize active registry curation. It is important to the integrity of the registry
I have two different proposals for the community to consider and discuss:
Proposal 1: Deposit is Held Until Registration Expiry
In this case the submission deposit would not be returned to the submitter after registration, serving as a constant incentive for registry curation by good faith challengers, just as is the case in the pending registration stage. The deposit could then be carried over to the next registration period, functioning kind of like an apartment deposit carrying over to the next lease period. It would be returned in the case of a self-removal or unwillingness to renew PoH registration.
Proposal 2: Tax Levied on UBI Drip for Request Removal Rewards Pool
Instead of holding the deposit permanently, I propose that a undefined percentage of each registration’s UBI drip be taxed and then added to a common rewards pool that then serves to fill the default defense deposit for a request removal. This would be attractive to both challengers and defenders, because the challengers are always guaranteed to be rewarded for a valid removal request as determined by Kleros and defenders would not need to worry about putting up the first round deposit for a removal request, serving as insurance against bad faith request removals. This would also allow the submission deposit to continue to be released to the registrant after successful registry.
As a final thought for this proposal, it could be that the tax is not persistent and only levied registry-wide upon the initiation of a removal request, scaled to properly incentivize the challenger after ETH gas fees are considered.
Edit 1: The Taxed UBI in proposal 2 would be released back to the community, just as it was taxed, in the event that the challenge fails.