Proposal: Free TON Blog Contest results evaluation
This document suggests applying the special procedure of The Free TON Blog Contest results evaluation. The process should include an additional step of removing votes made by several jury members due to their participation in the Blog Contest.
The Issue
The Free TON Blog Contest held by SMM Sub Governance has just finished (see the proposal PDF).
The Proposal has the following text:
Jurors will vote for your submission. Jurors whose team(s) intend to participate in this contest by providing submissions of their own lose their right to vote in this contest.
There is a proven fact that 3 (Telegram: Contact @tugt45, Telegram: Contact @senya_dz, Telegram: Contact @kekerya) of 7 initial members (see the sheet with public keys and addresses) belong to one team what is clearly stated in the following messages in the open chat of SMM Subgovernance:
In this dialogue, initial member Ivan Kotelnikov asks about the affiliation of Senya Dumbadze, Ekaterina, and Alexander - whether they are one team or not.
The answers by Senya Dumbadze and Alexander are affirmative: “Yes, we are”.
As result, Telegram: Contact @senya_dz (wallet 0:28f...f49), Telegram: Contact @kekerya (wallet 0:ad3...8cd) and Telegram: Contact @tugt45 (wallet 0:b9e...c14) could not vote for any submissions in the blog contest as Submission #2 was uploaded by Telegram: Contact @tugt45 and developed by this team.
Proposal Specification
Based on this open data it is proposed to remove the votes of 3 members of the SMM Sub Governance Jury mentioned below from the Free TON Blog Contest scoring process.
0x7ee520d94a4df7cda9d8e4a8354c0787decd1bd7837f1bb4412959881e2e312f
0x8355ee4acf95b683e4c24b0cb0c2c15e4c5358dcca4e376cf46670396583798b
0xf994c44f75375032a0565916f461315337b863c95c236ea1b9162453639b589a
Number of points per submission without the votes of jury members, violated the Contest Voting Procedure:
| Submission # | Points by jurors eligible to vote | Average, pts |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10; 8; 10; 8 | 9 |
| 2 | 9; 7; 10; 8 | 8.5 |
| 3 | 10; 6; 7; 7 | 7.5 |
| 4 | 10; 10; 10; 9 | 9.75 |
| 5 | 9; 9; 7; 9 | 8.5 |
| 6 | 9; 6; 8; 6 | 7.25 |
| 7 | 8; 4; 7; 5 | 6 |
| 8 | 7; 6; 6; 7 | 6.5 |
| 9 | 8; 5; 1; 6 | 5 |
| 10 | 7; 6; 3; 7 | 5.75 |
| 11 | 9; 10; 8; 10 | 9.25 |
| 12 | 8; 8; 6; 7 | 7.25 |
| 13 | 9; 7; 6 | 6.33 |
| 14 | 8; 5; 5 | 6 |
| 15 | 9; 10; 10 | 9.66 |
| 16 | 9; 7; 6 | 7.33 |
| 17 | 4; 1; 3; 0 (Reject) | 2 |
| 18 | 9; 6; 5 | 6.66 |
Conclusion (Governance Best Practice)
This serious precedent clearly states that the activity of any Sub Governance within Free TON is advised to be started with a Jury Contest to ensure that further activity will be made in a decentralized fashion and all possible interest group’s opinions will be taken into account.
Additionally, all jury members are advised to announce their affiliation with each other and any third parties or companies and abstain from voting in Contests which their affiliates participate in. In other cases, the whole model of decentralized governance turns into upvoting your own works and downvoting the works of others. As a result, the community doesn’t choose, all the decisions are made by third parties in full accordance with their personal interests.
