Free TON

A clear way to make the judging process, more transparent & fair

A clear way to make the judging process, more transparent & fair

Free TON community is taking its first steps towards development and decentralization. It would be naive to say that there won’t be any obstacles in the development and widespread adoption process. Some of these obstacles will take some time to be removed by the community and some of them can be omitted a lot faster. I believe the judging process of contests is one of the weaknesses of our space and we all know it.

It is worth mentioning that the developers are doing their best to push this community into GOV 2.0 where every user will be able to vote by holding TON Crystal tokens. But what will happen to submissions until GOV 2.0? Participants of contests put a lot of effort into their work for contests so I believe they deserve a better and more transparent process to be judged. This is why I decided to write this proposal and suggest 2 options to prevent misjudgment until the developers implement the second phase of governance in Free TON blockchain:

1- KYJ (Know Your Juror) Process.

2- Halting all the contests until GOV 2.0.

1- KYJ (Know Your Juror) Process:

Having jurors who are known to participants is a great way to improve contests’ transparency. In this way, all the given scores can be discussed between participants and jurors. Also it can help to prevent malicious acts of some jurors. In this process:

  • All of the jurors should provide their full name (Can be verified by the community admins).
  • All of the jurors should provide a valid Telegram ID (Can be verified by the community admins).
  • All of the jurors should provide a valid Email (Can be verified by the community admins).
  • Before the start of the contests, Jurors’ names with Telegram IDs, Emails, and wallet addresses will be shown on each contest’s forum page, under the main post of the contests.
  • If any participant would have any question regarding the score that a juror has given him/her, he/she can ask for an explanation from that juror, and the juror should attend a special zoom meeting (arranged after every contest) and answer all the questions which participants have asked.
  • If there’s a malicious voting pattern from a juror or it is proved that any juror is a participant himself/herself, or have any relationship with other participants, he/she should be banned from voting, forever.

2-Halting all the contests until GOV 2.0:

If the above method is difficult for the community to implement, I suggest putting a stop to all contests until the beginning of GOV 2.0. I believe it will prevent any further malicious voting-and-winning process until GOV 2.0.

I urge the community to pass this proposal since it’s completely doable and will absolutely have a positive impact on the health of contests and therefore the quality of the contests.

All the best.


Hello @Mooni,

I like your proposal, but I have some questions.

You stated that it should be mandatory to attend zoom. Why?
If for a participant an explanation in text form is enough, then I think it should not be mandatory to attend zoom, but if participant wants to talk in zoom, that will be arranged.

Where are we going to draw the line between relationships? Elaborate more about what kind of relationships.


Admins cannot collect emails - it’s personal data. Then Telegram ID, we already have such an option in proposals.

  • If there’s a malicious voting pattern from a juror or it is proved that any juror is a participant himself/herself, or have any relationship with other participants, he/she should be banned from voting, forever.

How can you prove it? Ask their home address?

What’s about privacy?


Could you explain exactly why is there the need to halt all the contests? It will slow down growth of Free TON.

A very possible scenario that I see would be that participants with low scores will start blaming jurors of malicious voting. And how exactly would it be possible to prove such thing?



  1. Jurors should have VALID reasons for upvoting or downvoting a submission. So basically, they should get ready for a live Q&A. Zoom meetups provide such platform. If their reasons would be valid, they can answer the questions in live zoom sessions and if they can’t provide valid reasons, community can ban them forever. If you do it via text, they would easily get away with it by writing excuses that they write under submissions!

  2. Any kinds of relationships. When a juror gives a high score for an average or lower submission to make it a winner, technically he/she won’t be able to give a solid reason. So that’s enough to realize there’s a connection between the juror and the participant!

LinkedIn is full of these “personal data” that you’re talking about!

It’s about business! When a juror agrees to join voting, he/she should provide what is needed for that business!

That’s an option! Halting contests can be used if we find it difficult to implement KYJ!

We can do the contest but keep voting for GOV 2.0.

Just take a quick look at the previous contests’ forum pages. Most of the participants are “grown ups” who provided solid proofs for malicious voting of some jurors.

  1. That’s true, Jurors should have VALID reasons for upvoting and downvoting a submission.
    Jurors should be ready for zoom meetups, but you stated it is mandatory. Elaborate more about why you think it should be mandatory, if for a participant an explanation in text form is enough for example.

  2. How we will know if it is a high, average or low submission? Who is going to be the one who will decide? Thats why we have decentralized system in the first place to take into account what community, not just one person thinks.
    Originally jurors need to have valid reasons for upvoting or downvoting a submission ALREADY!

We have it, check other jury selection contest. I don’t understand what you are trying to offer here.

1). At this moment there is no anonymous juror members. Each person who wants to become a jury member should provide his contacts. It help to make it very transparent to understand who voted for each submission.

  1. You wrote « further malicious voting-and-winning process» What processes are you talking about?
    If you know about any jury suspensions or facts of corruption (excluded that were already posted) let us know we can make an investigation among the community.

  2. It is not conceivable to stop contest/partnerships/other activities due to the fact that the voting mechanism is not perfect. Free TON needs breakout growth, not stagnation.

  3. At this moment there are a few analytics/statistics contests in developments. One of the directions is “jury and voting”. Trust me, very soon the voting process will be as transparent as possible. Even gov 2.0 is not needed here. Any corruption or suspicion will be instantly visible to everyone. Past contest or real-time.

  1. Actually I said why should it be mandatory. We already see how they comment on submissions. Just a ridiculous excuse and they give a 2! Participants even can’t reply to that comment! But on zoom, if they provide such excuses, they’ll face participants’ questions until they provide a solid reason.

  2. LOL! no! current system is totally centralized & if you can’t differentiate good work from bad work, how would you vote in GOV 2.0? Sounds like you’re new to free TON! Just check contests’ submissions and check out jurors’ comments like: “I don’t like it”!

Do we have it?!
So show me if jurors provide their wallet addresses, names, TG IDs, emails, etc in FORUM for EVERYONE!
Show me a zoom session in which a juror is explaining why he/she has ruined submissions.

1.BHAHAHA! There is no anonymous jurors? True for you! Maybe you know all of them & they helped you to win some contests! I’m talking about users like me who don’t have & don’t wanna have any juror friends! If you know them & they’re not anonymous, list all the jurors in Landing page design contest with their names, wallet addresses, and telegram IDs.

2.The malicious voting-and-winning process is the current situation in which jurors determine themselves and their friends as winners!

  1. If you read other posts (which i know you didn’t) I said we should stop the voting process. Not the submitting process.

  2. I doubt that. You guys are just bragging about transparency while you don’t even provide the names of jurors.

It would be nice if in the future we will have slashing for malicious judges. This should also apply to subgovernances that have been disbanded.

1 Like

Very interesting question. Why don’t you provide your personal data? Like email, real name, phone number, passport, your girlfriend name?

My girlfriend’s name? You talk like Mr. sunglasses and as a community manager, you don’t even know how to behave online.

You once told me this on group and I told you i’m not a juror. Make me a juror and I will give you my real name, email and phone number (of course after all jurors give theirs).

You asked me a solution on group and you don’t even dare to put this proposal into voting.

1 Like

What are you talking about? :slightly_smiling_face: What’s with all these personal accusations that you allow yourself?!

In regards with who is who in the jury:

First of all, I am not your personal assistant! All the information is available in open sources, those who are interested know that and follow! Moreover, all the data referring which address belongs to whom was published as well in the chats in form of announcements. I recommend you to study forum, chats and other public sources before claiming that I know who is who in the jury and you don’t. You may as well wait until the analytics/statistics contests are over and contest entrants will point their fingers towards the relevant information sources for you.

Regarding the second point, I don’t know who you are, but my experience is telling me that if the one is blaming the other in something, it has to be backed up with a valid proof base. Otherwise it just sounds like a white noise from an offended person. Give me the facts and I will be the first to advocate the charges to people involved in any kind of fraud or corruption. I have also been in the position where serious injustices happened to me during the contests. But it doesn’t mean that you have to go nuts about it)

Yes, there are many mistakes and similar situations ahead. Yes, there will be precedents and we will have to manage them. We have to develop tools of reaching the maximum consensus! But I am asking all of you, please, let’s focus all our efforts on development and exponential growth of FreeTON. Let us concentrate on future voting procedures efficiency instead of endless discussions about particular contests.

There were fuckups before, they happen now and they will keep happening in the future! We are building something new, something that never existed before. We will definitely make mistakes, sometimes we will make even repeated ones. But please, think about the big goal that we are all headed to. If you fell victim to injustice in some particular contest, I understand you like no one else would. But you shouldn’t spill out all your anger on the community, jury or anybody else because of that. It would rather be better to help in such problems solving and move on! Help us to do so through creation of more good quality contests, partnerships and day-to-day live scenario integrations for FreeTON.

1 Like

I think need promotion as campaign as free ton with this forum although have campaign on bitcointalk forum, this most effective how to get many people join in this forum and sharing with their opinion about ton surf. I am glad become this part and discussing about my opinion but for better at the future good for creating campaign here.

I think the judging process is fair because the Free TON community supports decentralization, so the project will be widely adopted. Every project faces hurdles but the developers’ effort will be rewarded with success. I liked the suggestions and hope they take effect. Good luck.

I admire your persistence. I looked at your original submission for the landing page contest. I will refrain from giving it a score, but I will say that I still firmly believe that you are absolutely convinced of your talent when others question it.

This is not a partnership proposal. This is a proposal to turn Free TON into a centralized, permissioned blockchain. Please accept that as much as there is a jury issue, that issue does not apply to your landing page submission. I frankly think the score you got was a gift.

There, I once again failed to be constructive. Okay. I apologize.

Nonetheless, judging this proposal on just its own merit, it belongs in the comments section of a chat or another proposal. There is no partnership to speak of here.