The Free TON blockchain develops precisely through contests and partnerships. Anyone in the ecosystem can propose their own contest, which should eventually contribute to the development of the network — not only by the efforts of programmers, but also by the efforts of specialists in other fields.
And it is very important that the contest proposal itself, the work of the participants, and the jury evaluation — everything is transparent, fair and, in the end, really contributes to the future of Free TON.
But sometimes the human factor makes adjustments and, unfortunately, not always positive. What happens when a jury member deliberately lowers the score when evaluating a particular work? For this, the Free TON network uses jury slashing. But it is very important that the fact of malicious intent is proven during the investigation, and not someone’s speculation.
For example, in the interface contest, Darya Artanovskaya (@Artanovskaya), according to other jury members, gave 1 point to the objectively good work of the CEO Analytics Group representatives — and this was not a typo, as the corresponding Google document also registered «1». Despite the unpleasant moment, justice prevailed: the team became the silver medalist.
«Any outside participant sees that the work is good, and it was undeservedly given 1, that is, there was an evil intent,» explains Roman D. — If they gave it a score of 3 or 4, it would be okay. But when the work is great, “1” is at least strange.»
Apart from this case, there were several other similar cases in the Free TON network — for example, in DevEx and Web&Design subgovernances.
What is the slashing procedure now
The Initial subgovernance, which is responsible for the contest with a controversial evaluation of works, makes a special proposal on the Free TON forum, indicating the need to remove a judge’s vote in the final grade because he or she maliciously lowered the score, having his own interest in this. Community members come to a consensus: they decide whether it is appropriate to do so or not.
Keep in mind that it is impossible and will never be possible to cancel someone’s votes on blockchain, but it is possible to disregard them in the contest.
Opinion of the initial member Roman_D
“In Governance 2.0, this is generally a jury problem. And things would work better if judges made a deposit,» thinks Roman_D. Then the jury member would think twice before giving a lower score to this or that contestant. He would have evaluated more intelligently. Now the judge just gets a reward, and he has no responsibility at all.”
In addition, the collusion of judges is quite possible, therefore, according to Roman_D, it is necessary for the community to monitor the actions of the jury. Ideally, judges should be replaced once a year so that the judge can prove that he/she has done a decent job.
Also, Roman_D believes the remuneration of the jury should be much higher than the current one. For example, this point was discussed several times during the «News Website» contest. However, in the end, not all jury members were able to vote for one reason or another, so the reward of active participants was automatically increased from a possible 150 tokens to 450.
If the reward is very small, then, following the human factor, it makes sense for the jury to start some sort of conspiracy. And when people are more motivated, it makes no sense for them to play any unfair game, and they do their work honestly and conscientiously — with dignity.