Free TON

Suspicious voting in a Slashing condition specification Сontests

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.

You can check this easily:
Submission 11

Submission 10

Submission 9


Submission 8

Submission 7

Submission 6

I think you found this pattern easily.
Submission 2 also rejected together

But top-3 proposals have another points
Submission 5

Submission 4

And winner …
Submission 3

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?

10 Likes

Good job! I think that the jury has no right to behave like that.

4 Likes

It looks like abuse and should be punished for it.

2 Likes

Is it forbidden to give the same points and the same comments to different participants?

3 Likes

It is not forbidden, but it looks strange

3 Likes

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

1 Like

That would be good. But I think that this could break the anonymity of the jury. But I’m also wondering why no one has written about this before.

1 Like

I wrote. Then the truth was still impossible to hide users and make them anonymous.

2 Likes

This is very suspicious.

1 Like

Is it possible to make Investigation?
Everything is written in blockchain and jury’s have access to it.

2 Likes

Hi. The trick is that if you remove all these suspicious ratings, the final result will not change :grin:
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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

I found some interesting information.
These are the wallets of all the jury https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1z_4c2GlfCT7FrsnE3ZNzR6XiqPL3GDXmKLLsGz9AKYE/edit#gid=1266989350

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.

Blockchain data about this contest
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmeVCDgodSy2yn8EhCgjoFpYiguuh9kZHT4h6GuWUuQ84N

1 Like

Я думаю что это хороший вопрос для AMA-сессии