Our solution provider concept is not clear, we need to improve. What can we learn from Foldit [Closed]

#23

You can see the addresses of the council in Polkadot UI. There are currently only six and I actually don’t know who they are. The on chain veto did not occur in this case.

Some stats on the Foldit vote, for anyone who’s curious:

  • 26 farms voted ‘aye’
    • Of those, one farm appears to have 0 nodes
  • 215 nodes belong to those farms that were created before the vote ended and were active during or after the vote
  • That’s 7.7% of the nodes active on the grid at the time
  • These nodes contain 9,700 CRU, or 15% of the total active on the grid at the time (voting is acutally weighted on CU and SU, so this is a simplified look )
  • There were no ‘nay’ votes
1 Like
#24

So basically we have a system in place, that was entirely ignored in every way possible.

We have a council but it’s unknown who they are and we haven’t actually asked their opinion.

While those are shocking numbers on participation, there was only 27 votes for 3.10 and I’ve never seen a vote with much participation.

Are we seriously still acting like we’re on seperate side of this argument. Where the hell has kristof gone has he obsconded to an island to usurp his need to respond to his community for a month and ten days, I’m done talk about this it’s a waste of breath. You have zero power to fix this and the only person that does is refusing to even be a part of the conversation.

1 Like
#25

I think it’s time that an aspect of this discussion is brought to light that we’ve been quiet about so far: @kiluminati is a family member of someone on the ThreeFold team (brother of @linkmark, if I understand correctly). When reviewing the voting data yesterday, I also noticed that ThreeFold’s own FreeFarm was used to vote in the passing of the Foldit proposal. If we’re going to view this situation objectively, these facts should be on the table.

Therefore, the idea that Foldit is a completely independent project that’s getting unfair treatment from ThreeFold isn’t the full story. On that note, the “50%” we keep talking about isn’t actually a lump sum going to one wallet. It’s split 45/5 between two wallets. Who owns that other wallet? Can we really say that this vote was done in full transparency? Did you really know what you were voting for?

This vote was blocked due to legitimate concerns about how the process was conducted and what it could mean for ThreeFold’s organizations if it was allowed to stand. Originally, I felt the same as some of you, that it wasn’t right to invalidate what had been done through the on chain process. But if the original proposal was valid, why should it be a big deal to vote again with clear information? I also initially reacted that we should also vote again for Zonaris in that case. But is anyone really raising questions about the process or outcome of the Zonaris vote? Or the Playground for that matter? Really?

I also thought that @kristof was being overbearing. But if you know Kristof, you know that he’s the person who has given the most to make ThreeFold happen and who cares the most about its success. Not for personal gain, but for the potential this technology has to make the world a better place, especially for those who need it most. That’s why I listen to him, not because he’s the “CEO”, and I will gladly stand my ground in a disagreement, if I think the best interests of the project are in jeopardy.

We all have much more to gain by working together, rather than working against each other. Frankly, I’m ashamed by the tone of some of the comments on this topic here and in our public chats. It’s natural to feel frustrated and to have some negative opinions about what’s happened. I won’t ask anyone to suppress negativity, but let’s please treat each other with a basic level of kindness.

3 Likes
#26

This is really just beyond me at this point. I don’t understand how any group of people can collectively be this bad at communication.

I for one could care less if someone got help from their family members who work for Threefold to master a new technology that WAS poorly documented and the only people that can help rarely do.

I continue to not see at all how foldit is increasing the grids liability more than anything else we’re doing. I mean we don’t even have a way to stop someone from hosting illicit/illegal material on the grid after the cops find it and expect farmers to charge on with that risk. What was the actual risk here? And if there was risk why wasn’t the established protocol for vetoing a vote take place.

I really feel like the big picture has been lost here to infantile bickering about fears without basis.

I will personally own every word I’ve said, everyone here knows full well I will move mountains to help anyone on a mission to help and grow others. In the same breath I’ll drop that mountain directly on someone if I feel like they are mistreating a huma. Doubly so if I feel like I was lied to and conned into personally encouraging the person being mistreated to be in that situation.

I had the conversations privately in the days after where all the reasons were laid out for me. I still have those conversations and they do not match with what’s being said now.

I’m even fine with the Freefarm voting, though I admit that shouldn’t have happened, foldit was built with good intentions and if we had partnered and supported this young man, instead of expending all the energy we had building walls, I really think foldit could of changed the grids future.

I will gladly publish every single conversation. I don’t do secrets and I don’t play games. Kilu did every single thing we had been begging for, for months and then we let him down because we were scared of… becoming as decentralized as we always said we wanted?

I have zero problem with adjusting the percentage

I have zero problem with SPs needing a tos

I have zero problem revoting.

But what’s the point if we can’t own the mistakes in this process and admit that it was not the decentralized way to handle the problems. I’m sorry but, this veto and the authoritarian attitude taken since, destroys everything the grid claims to be. At this point any company that openly accepts third party hardware for hosting on and treats them as vendors is just a decentralized as the grid.

We can fix percentages and policies, help people figure out a tos, hold any vote under the sun, but upholding the way the seal of decentralization has been broken here, is something we can’t take back. Look at the lines here, this is insane, nearly everyone in this thread in a moderator or qualified to be one.

We are clearly not communicating. Kilu wants to help us, he wants to be safe doing it, we want Kilu to help us, we want him to be safe doing it…. What is the actual issue?

#27

One more thought,

People are putting their actual lives into the development of technologies on top of the grid, this is not easy. And there is no amount of money that can replace knowledge, initiative, and determination in someone dedicated to your cause.

The grid may be a technology built on machines. But it will only live as technology supported by humans. You did not just veto a vote. You crushed a human beings success and made someone feel unwelcome and unsupported who did nothing but show up in support of your success. That is the only crime here.

Your team is literally so engaged in this mission that they are taking this home to their families, spending their off time doing more work, leveraging their relationships in support of this goal, and you appreciate that by accusing them of having I’ll intent to…. Steal open source secrets? We are still open source right?

This isn’t about solution providers. It’s about people and recognizing them as human beings.
.

#28

Wow @scott , wait a minute. Are you really going this route and then at the end say to treat each other with kindness? Can you please explain what you are suggesting here. From how I understand your reply you are maybe trying to say that I try to uphold the vote to enrich myself? Because I own the 5% wallet and have voted for the Foldit DAO with the Freefarm wallet? Please elaborate on this so we know what you mean by it.

Transparency? As much as you want, ask away:
Yes, Kilu is my brother. We grew up together and have a nice list of previous project like Foldit we did together, it’s fun doing these things with a family member. We work well together. It was never a secret, I have checked this internally if it was a problem and got replied with ‘no it’s not relevant’. All parties involved also know this.

Yes, I own the 5% wallet that is part of the 50% that was requested in the Foldit solution provider request. I work full time for Threefold and did everything Foldit in my spare time. Isn’t 5% reasonable? Should that be 0? Or does it show I’m trying to fill my pockets here?

Yes I voted with the Freefarm wallet ‘yes’ on the Foldit DAO. I hope you won’t make me explain this one since then I would have to talk about how things work here internally. And I don’t mean totally bad or anything dramatic like that, but there are serious issues yes as there are in every team. We just need time to resolve them all, and we will resolve them all. I can already say that I’m the only one voting yes on all votes in general that are created by Threefold, as has been instructed to me (by Kristof, in person, here in Belgium. I asked him if it was ok that I voted yes on DAO votes with Freefarm). If I would not vote with Freefarm in general, no Freefarm vote would come (and you know why, see last 3.10 DAO). The atmosphere at the time was also all ‘amazing’, happiness and people supporting the idea. I checked with the team if the vote should happen or not and the consensus was easily reached at that time. All of this was also not an issue then, things needed to go fast as always (rings a bell?).

@scott I expect you to explain in detail what you meant with your last insinuation. Since its very much directed to me and I feel very much insulted by it. I have nothing to hide or nothing to be ashamed off, I can say I’m even proud of my contributions to Threefold. You left me no choice then to react to this.

Where was it written at the time that the ownership of both wallets should be revealed or included in the GEP/DAO vote? Or where was it defined that communicating that to the farmers should be done by the solution provider requester and not TF who makes the DAO vote? So your saying Threefold made this mistake themselves? What are we even talking about? Are we going over each little detail we can think of to throw at each other?

I wanted to propose the following, that could satisfy both parties, a compromise. But then the chat discussion happened. Still, a last attempt to find a middle ground and get both parties what they want:

  • We approve the original DAO vote
  • That same day we create a new GEP to revote on Foldit with the following conditions:
    – Drop the solution provider % to one wallet and to 25%
    – Define how Foldit will give support
    – Explain this 25% will not be the case for future solution providers
    – Foldit creates a ‘TOS’ that clearly states all of this is experimental and in beta, to use Foldit at your own risk. That Foldit nor Threefold can be held responsible whatever happens to your fund and/or workloads.

This way:

  • we establish trust because the original dao vote was respected
  • the % was dropped by half to show upholding the original dao vote is not about any profits or profits %
  • Support is defined as proposed earlier
  • As requested before, the revote mentions that this situation will not be the case for the future
  • Since it’s required, writing a sufficient TOS will take months. To be able to move on for now, we can clearly state the use of Foldit is at your own risk.
2 Likes
#29

Thanks everyone for discussing this hot topic. I think everyone here wants the best for ThreeFold. In my book, heated exchanges are good if we end up having a better situation for all. I think we’re getting there! We can do it.

I think what @linkmark proposed here is an excellent step in resolving the situation:

“”"

  • We approve the original DAO vote

  • That same day we create a new GEP to revote on Foldit with the following conditions:

    • Drop the solution provider % to one wallet and to 25%

    • Define how Foldit will give support

    • Explain this 25% will not be the case for future solution providers

    • Foldit creates a ‘TOS’ that clearly states all of this is experimental and in beta, to use Foldit at your own risk. That Foldit nor Threefold can be held responsible whatever happens to your fund and/or workloads.

“”"

For the sake of putting in this new GEP all the parameters mentioned in the overall discussion, I think it should also be stated the two following points:

  • Foldit is a client-based closed source solution where data stays within the user’s browser

  • For the moment, Foldit does not plan to have active marketing. In the scenario where Foldit would add marketing to its solution, a new vote would be done to reassess the % of the TFT Revenue stream at this point.

Thus, the new Foldit GEP vote could state the following:

Foldit Solution Provider GEP (Draft)

  • Foldit is a client-based closed source solution where data stays within the user’s browser

  • Foldit URL is the following: https://foldit.tf/

  • For the moment, Foldit does not plan to have active marketing. In the scenario where Foldit would add marketing to its solution, a new vote would be done to reassess the % of the TFT Revenue stream for the solution.

  • Support for Foldit users can be found in the Foldit telegram channel. *

  • The Foldit Terms of Services (TOS) will, in essence, be as follows:

    • All of Foldit is experimental and in beta. You should use Foldit at your own risk. Foldit and Threefold cannot be held responsible for whatever happens to your fund and/or workloads when using Foldit.

    • A more complete TOS might be developed later on. In this case, another GEP vote would be done to reassess the situation.

  • The Foldit GEP vote should be open for 30 days, in order to make sure as many farmers as possible can vote. **

  • For all the parameters given above, Foldit is asking for 25% of the TFT Revenue stream.

* As I understand for now, the Foldit telegram channel is a chat where you need an invitation to get in. Thus, it would be good to create a distinct public telegram channel for Foldit support (e.g. https://t.me/foldit_support). This should then be updated in the draft above. (Or the current chat could also be made more “publicly accessible”.)

** Perhaps 30 days of voting window would be sufficient. We can adjust if needed.

Of course, this is a draft. I invite the solution provider, @kiluminati, to adjust as he sees fit.

@kristof, do you think this draft is correct from ThreeFold’s perspective (e.g. in terms of legal requirements)? If adjustments are needed, please let us know. Of course, I invite others to speak their mind and share their thoughts too. It would actually be greatly appreciated.

Also, I think it could be clearly stated that the revenues are split into different wallets, if this is still what @kiluminati and @linkmark want. I think that this is a choice that belongs to the solution provider. The goal of those new/adjusted “guidelines” is to make sure farmers know what they are voting for. This means, the information within the smart contract of the solution provider should be clearly stated in the GEP forum post. Based on this present fruitful, but nonetheless laboursome, discussion, I wrote this post to summarize the solution provider discussion, and the current reply here was based on this post too.

I can’t help but think (and hope!) that the hard work we all put here (especially the developers of the solution) for this solution provider will lead to an efficient and clear solution provider process.

3 Likes
#30

Hey Bert, sorry if you found my post to be rude or insulting. That wasn’t my intention at all. I was simply sharing information that I thought should be part of this discussion, and explaining my own process of arriving at the stance I take on this now.

I really wasn’t passing any judgments on you. Of course you want Foldit to succeed and would advocate for that. Actually, I think that’s what we all want; to find a way for Foldit to become a success story.

To be honest, I was rather surprised to find the 45/5 split in the TF Chain data. I’m not saying it’s wrong for you to get 5%, and I’m not just digging up details to try to make anyone look bad. What I’m saying is that this information should have been presented before the vote was taken, so that everyone voting could make their own determination about what’s fair and right.

Many things about how a solution provider application and vote should happen were not defined in written rules before the Foldit vote. And yes, mistakes were made by ThreeFold in this process. I surely could have done more to avoid the outcome we’ve arrived at. That’s the message in the title of this thread, that we need to improve.

When I was reviewing everything that happened, something stuck out to me. It’s the first reply to the announcement that we’d be voting on Foldit:

Wow that’s fast.

How fast? @kiluminati posted an announcement of Foldit on March 21. Here’s part of it:

All of this is still a work in progress. I’m creating this post as an application to become a solution provider, and while I welcome anyone willing to give my website a try, I have to emphasize that it is not yet completely finished. It will contain bugs, it might go down, and I don’t want anyone risking any TFT that they are not prepared to lose in helping to test this.

Two days later on March 23, the vote was live and it closed one week after that.

Of course there was broad support and a lot of excitement at the time for Folidt, myself included. It totally makes sense that some important details were overlooked in that context.

But in retrospect, shouldn’t we have slowed down and asked more questions before bringing this to a vote? And since we didn’t, isn’t it appropriate to stop and reassess?

That’s the conclusion I’ve arrived at, but I didn’t get there without seeing the whole picture I have now. And that’s why I shared what I did, so that we indeed have transparency and individuals can assess for themselves.

As for the outcome, I’m happy to support any proposal that adequately addresses the legal concerns and has support from the creators of Foldit.

#31

@Mike, you are or were a grid guardian, how do you feel about this thread?

@rudybouwman?

1 Like
#32

I want to set the record straight one last time:

In the last community call, there was a section about Foldit. There were several things said there that aren’t actually true. I won’t address them all, but I do want to address one thing: The claim was made that Foldit is no longer willing to participate and therefore we can’t move forward. They claimed that, as soon as Foldit wants to open this again, Threefold is willing to move forward.

This is untrue, and can be easily verified, even in this very thread:

  • After everything that happened, we made one last effort to suggest a compromise, giving in to almost all of Threefold’s new demands.
  • Two community managers replied that they are willing to support this compromise.
  • Permission was asked of Kristof by the forum manager to continue with this proposal, publicly, on this thread.
  • More than a month has passed and Kristof has completely ignored this.

The claim that we were no longer willing to participate is not true. The only person blocking this, as far as I can tell, is Kristof – despite what he claimed in the community call. Not that it matters. It’s clear he’s not willing to resolve this, so it’s pointless for us to keep fighting to get our solution approved. Just be honest about it to your community. In that call, he said Threefold wants to close this topic. OK, so case closed I guess, there’s nothing more I can do.

1 Like
#33

this is not true, I am not blocking anything, never have,

I am not that much on the forums right now because I am fundraising and talking with lots of people.

please note, I am only once voice in the bigger ecosystem, I am not blocking anything, its not because I go on a call to try and represent the many and find solutions that it means I am the one stopping this.

as far as I understand from the others:

  • we love your project to continue, but mistakes were done in voting process as explained
  • we want the voting to be re-done
  • you just need to tell the administrators to start the voting process
  • you just need to make sure the required information is public
  • and then its up to the community to vote

I personally won’t even vote, I don’t have many tokens to vote with anyhow because the farms I have funded like freefarm are administered by others,

so please lets for once and for all stop this, if you wanna do this, then submit your info to scott or mik, a vote will be put on blockchain, a forum post made with the information

if you don’t then I guess its clear you don’t want too.

thank you for your understanding, and lets please stop this thread and go for it or not.

thanks

Kristof

#34

Since I helped to write the slides for the community call where we last discussed Foldit, I want to present the reasoning for why we said that Foldit has not been responsive and thus we cannot move forward.

If I review this thread, the last post from @kiluminati before the community call was on June 22. After that, some different ideas were floated and collected into a proposal from Mik, in a post that includes an invitation for input from @kiluminati. We didn’t hear anything after that, not even a simple, “yes, this sounds good to me”.

That said, this proposal is not viable, and let me explain why. The suggestion is that Foldit post a disclaimer indicating that neither Foldit nor ThreeFold is liable for anything that might go wrong while using the software. While this sounds nice, it’s not a robust legal agreement for two reasons I see. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice—I’ve just done a bit of research on the subject.

The first reason is that there is no legal counterparty, since “Foldit” is not a legal entity. The second is that blanket waivers of liability are not generally enforceable. Rather, certain kinds of liability can be excluded, some can be limited, and others are unavoidable. The details here depend on jurisdiction.

Let’s consider some of the potential situations and what might apply in each case:

  1. A user of Foldit loses profits in their business because their workload went down. This type of liability can generally be exempted, such that the provider of the service is protected against any claims
  2. Foldit publishes some malicious code that defrauds users of their funds. In this case, attempts to avoid liability will almost certainly be deemed unenforceable
  3. Some third party gains access to Foldit’s server and inserts their own malicious code that steals users funds. The ability to limit liability in this case may depend on the extent to which Foldit’s server admin is deemed negligent in failing to secure the server
  4. There is a bug in Foldit that unintentionally causes the loss of user funds. Here a limitation of liability is probably appropriate, if not an outright exemption

We are not asking anyone to take on full liability for the use of a solution. Instead we are asking for a legally enforceable document with a legal counterparty (individual or business) that addresses the potential liabilities and ensures that they are not transferred to ThreeFold.

What we’d like to see to move this matter forward is a new proposal that includes these ToS and a clear definition of the requested revenue cut. If that’s provided, we’ll take a new vote. Like it or not, voting again is the simplest way to make sure we have a viable and well defined proposal that’s supported by the community. Mistakes were made and it’s time to move on.

So @kiluminati, here’s your choice. You can bring your proposal that meets the requirements we’ve outlined and post it here in the forum so we can bring it to a vote, or decide that you don’t want to further pursue the solution provider status.

With that, I am going to lock this thread from receiving further replies. If anyone is concerned about what I wrote here, please send me a message.

Start farming reward lock and utilization payments to farmers (closed, see new post to continue)
#35