0000-Hold_Rewards_for_Denylist_Hotspots #551
Conversation
|
|
||
| ## Proposal: | ||
| To address this issue, this HIP proposes a temporary holding of rewards for hotspots that have been placed on the denied list. The rewards would be held until a review and appeal process is completed. If the hotspot is deemed to be legitimate, the rewards would be returned to the hotspot owner. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this mean that the pool of rewards are therefore not going to active hotspots on the network? Just on the surface, this looks like it would negatively impact all hotspots that are not on the denylist by limiting the pool of mining rewards that go to active and honest hotspots.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would think maybe it gets held for a period of time, maybe 60 days or something until the denylist hotspot owner has had chance to appeal the decision. After this the held funds if no appeal is granted could then be either burnt or donated to charity, or just evenly shared amongst legitimate online hotspots during this time as some form of "we caught some gamers bonus". Open to ideas on this one, if you have a suggestion feel free to PR against my fork / branch.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Before rewards can be held in a reserve like this, they have to come from somewhere and be accounted for.
The current pool of all rewards is distributed across the network in defined buckets so any additional portions would need to come from one of those existing buckets. Do you have a particular bucket in mind?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Make a denylist submission put a staked bond of 5 HNT. If you are found legit, you get it back. If you are still found to be a gamer, you forfeited the 5 HNT.
| To address this issue, this HIP proposes a temporary holding of rewards for hotspots that have been placed on the denied list. The rewards would be held until a review and appeal process is completed. If the hotspot is deemed to be legitimate, the rewards would be returned to the hotspot owner. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Implementation: | ||
| 1. A review and appeal process will be established to allow hotspot owners to challenge their denied rewards. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We already have the denylist review and appeal process at Crowdspot.io. Can you add into your HIP how this would build on top of Crowdspot and the processes we already have in place to solve #1 (listed here).
|
|
||
| ## Implementation: | ||
| 1. A review and appeal process will be established to allow hotspot owners to challenge their denied rewards. | ||
| 2. The rewards for denied hotspots will be temporarily held in a secure escrow account. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Who will hold this account? Foundation? or the subDAO?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's too early to say, because we don't know how Oracles will work. But ideally it would be something automatically handled in some decentralise way so no one person can just run off with the HNT.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it would be good to connect with some of the folks implementing oracles. Check this #core-dev or #blockchain channels in Discord and find a Core Dev who's working on it to talk to.
| 1. A review and appeal process will be established to allow hotspot owners to challenge their denied rewards. | ||
| 2. The rewards for denied hotspots will be temporarily held in a secure escrow account. | ||
| 3. The review and appeal process will be conducted by a panel of experts in the Helium community. | ||
| 4. The panel will review the evidence presented by the hotspot owner and make a determination on the legitimacy of the hotspot. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is already a group of volunteers who are trained in denylist removal and appeals. I would make sure you're building on the current processes in place and if you're looking to change the processes, be clear why the current ones are not working today.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this was down to one of the other author's I'll ask it to rewrite this part to acknowledge that this is in addition to the existing processes and not trying to rewrite what happens in terms of review. (ChatGPT)
| 5. If the hotspot is deemed to be legitimate, the rewards will be returned to the hotspot owner. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Conclusion: | ||
| This HIP aims to prevent the unfair denial of rewards to legitimate hotspots while also maintaining the integrity of the Helium network. By temporarily holding the rewards until a review and appeal process is completed, we can ensure that the network is protected against fraud while also ensuring that the rewards are fairly distributed to those who have contributed to the network. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There might be another issue here...when a hotspot is added to the denylist they are no longer participating in POC, which means they are not beaconing or witnessing. So how would they continue to get rewarded if they're not participating in POC? Your proposal might be asking to fundamentally change the denylist. I think this needs to be fleshed out a bit more. You might want to run this idea by folks in the community on these channels, or we can put you in contact with an expert on the denylist so that you can get more support or ask questions:
|
Perhaps a rethink from the ground up how HNT is distributed each Epoch? New code at point of release to send a very small percentage of HNT each Epoch to a reserve pool (held in trust by the Foundation or Nova labs) used for compensation purposes. any unused tokens in the pool after a year are then redistributed to all as rewards. when a hotspot is wrongly put on the Deny list an then removed it should be a simple calculation to work out how long in days they have been on it. Crowdspot could notify the a 'Compensations Panel' with the Trustees to issue compensation from the compensations pool to the wallet that miner is in. Either at a variable day earnings average i.e 0.1 HNT right now or by a flat rate per day or any other method voted as fair. |
|
Needs some tweaking, but I like the core concept. 🙂👍🏻 |
|
Renaming to avoid confusion with HIP-76 |
Co-authored-by: Sam Gutentag <developer@samgutentag.com>
|
Thanks for the suggesting @samgutentag I merged it in, please also feel free to edit the authors to add yourself to the list. I do not have all the answers to the other enquiries right now, I'll ask the fellow authors how they feel and update accordingly. However outside contribution is greatly encouraged. |
|
hey @robputt there's still some things that need to be resolved on this. Can you see the changes requested? |
|
Hi. Let's collaborate. I think we are working toward the same goal. Reduce the wait on crowdspot, streamline the appeal process, and find a way to compensate false positive gotspots. |
|
@hiptron |
|
Closing this on behalf of the HIP Editors. |
No description provided.