I took part in the Slashing condition specification Contest and discovered suspicious actions of the jury.
3 juries gave the same points to most of the participants. They also left the same comments.
I think that the actions of these three judges can be considered suspicious. Also I’m not sure about the honesty of the winner.
What do you think about it?
Okay. If someone will be submitted to the jury and they will be chosen by the jury. It will be possible to create a chat where everyone can get detailed answers. The jury can be made anonymous
Hi. The trick is that if you remove all these suspicious ratings, the final result will not change
By the way I am one of the contestants and watched all the works of my competitors ’ colleagues. And in General, only 3-4 works are really high-quality, the level of the rest is noticeably lower, you can see this for yourself. Therefore, I believe that the votes correspond to the works.
But of course it would be great if the jury members will answer in this topic and clarify the situation.
You can see that submission 4 is much better than submission 3. Submission number 3 is not the best. In my mind, submission 3 not much better than the rest.
I have suspicions that the jury is related with the winner’s application. It’s not fair. We also see that the 3 jury keys perform the same patterns.
Also, the extra deadline shouldn’t be a problem. It is not the contestants’ fault that the contest was extended. I think that the contestants could have applied earlier if the competition had not been extended.
In my opinion, these 3 juries should be suspended.
You can see that some of the wallets are marked in yellow. Also, I cannot find these wallets in the list. I assume these wallets have been changed.
Thus, we can identify the judges who were engaged in suspicious voting.
These are: Lomashuk, P2P and Bitscale.
Lomashuk and P2P are one company. Why does P2P have 2 places in the jury? They are also associated with Cyberway. Cyberway are the winners of the competition.
I have little information about Bitscale, but I assume they are related to this too.
Perhaps someone is running these three wallets. Obviously, TON Labs can check this easily. But P2P is one of the main validators and I think that TON Labs doesn’t have the courage to ban these juries.
This is very strange and should be investigated further. Skipping situations like this creates bad incentives and encourages nepotism and corruption. The good news is that it’s blockchain and we as other participants in the network can always return and check this info.
Wow, this topic is definitely should be addressed by the community. In my opinion the same comments / same votes, etc. are a shame to those jurors. It’s better Not to vote at all, than vote like monkeys. And such behaviour definitely has no excuses to silently support it!
I propose to gather more information regarding voting by all jurors and publish the summary stats including the above facts.
Regardless of jurors regular elections, we do need to have some kind of requirements/restrictions for existing ones and a regular procedure to check such requirements against existing jurors. I’m not sure we need to hilight personalities of bad jurors, but the pubkeys of them should be eliminated from jurors as a result.
I totally agree with you, guys. I think that the community should create a working group that will investigate the wrong and fraudulent actions of the jury.
Thanks. To be honest, I am not fully involved in this. I want to be friendly. I would not want to harm Free TON. But I cannot stand idly by when there are obvious frauds.
