🥊Challenging Pot Results

On-chain process for the results of a quadratic funding round

Quadratic funding rounds currently rely on human input, with calculations performed off-chain, which could potentially create opportunities for collusion. To address this vulnerability, we have developed an on-chain process that allows community oversight through a formal challenge mechanism.

How It Works: The Community Cookbook Analogy

Imagine a community cookbook competition where recipes are judged through a collaborative voting process. After the initial judging (off-chain calculations), a designated "chef" publishes the results, but those results aren't immediately final.

A cooldown/challenge period begins following the matching round. During this time, anyone in the community can raise concerns or challenge the initial results—similar to how cookbook enthusiasts might question a judge's decision if they suspect unfair scoring or overlooked submissions.

This process ensures transparency and prevents any single entity from having absolute control over the final outcome. Just as a community cookbook review allows scrutiny of the judging process, this blockchain-based approach provides a structured way for participants to verify and potentially correct the initial funding allocation.

Reason to Create A Challenge

Challenges are an integral part of ensuring the integrity and fairness of our quadratic funding rounds. If you identify any of the following issues or more, please create a challenge to bring it to our attention.

System Errors or Bugs

• Incorrect Donation Processing: If donations were blocked or not processed correctly upon initial creation, potentially due to system glitches or bugs.

  • Example: A donor reports that their contribution was not reflected in the project's total, despite receiving a confirmation email.

  • Required Evidence: Screenshot of the donation confirmation, donor's transaction record, and the project's donation tally at the time.

• Changes to Nada Bot Requirements: Alterations to the Nada Bot's criteria that may have inadvertently affected project eligibility or donation matching.

  • Example: A project was retroactively deemed ineligible due to a change in the Nada Bot's requirements, impacting its matching funds.

  • Required Evidence: Documentation of the Nada Bot requirement change, the project's original eligibility status, and the subsequent impact.

Miscalculation in Matched Amounts

• Discrepancy in Funding Matching: Identifying errors in the calculation of matched amounts for projects, which could affect their overall funding.

  • Example: A project expected a 2:1 match but received a 1:1 match, indicating a potential calculation error.

  • Required Evidence: Screenshots of the project's funding page showing the expected vs. actual match, and any relevant calculation records.

Unfair Practices

• Solicitation of Donations through Unfair Incentives: Evidence of individuals or projects engaging in practices that unfairly influence donations, such as paying donors or offering unauthorized incentives.

  • Example: Reports of a project offering exclusive merchandise to donors, potentially skewing the funding landscape.

  • Required Evidence: Proof of the incentive (e.g., social media posts, direct messages), witness statements, or transaction records indicating suspicious patterns.

Misconduct by Project Administrator (Chef/Owner/Admin)

• Unauthorized or Deceptive Transactions: Actions by a project administrator that violate the trust and integrity of the funding round, including initiating transactions that deviate from the project's stated goals.

  • Example: A chef initiates a transaction transferring funds to an unrelated account, raising suspicions of misconduct.

  • Required Evidence: Transaction records, blockchain verification of the unauthorized transaction, and any communication from the chef/admin that may clarify or incriminate their actions.

Project Legitimacy Concerns

• Contesting Project Eligibility or Integrity: Challenging a project's legitimacy, eligibility for the round, or compliance with stated criteria, even if initially approved by the chef.

  • Basis for Challenge:

    • Scam or Fraudulent Activity: Evidence suggesting the project is deceitful in nature.

    • Non-Compliance with Round Criteria: Documentation showing the project fails to meet one or more specified eligibility requirements.

    • Illegitimate Operations: Proof of unethical practices or operational misconduct.

  • Required Evidence: Varying by challenge basis, but may include:

    • Screenshots of misleading project information

    • Testimonies from affected parties or whistleblowers

    • Official documents highlighting non-compliance with round criteria

    • Any other pertinent evidence supporting the legitimacy concerns quadratic funding, but a Chef can flag donors to be omitted from this calculation based on challenges, omit projects, and manually toggle the amount based on executive decisions. However, any change to calculated payouts needs to go through another payout period.