for a long time. Is it true there was a fuckup with every incentive, every giveaway so far (as the unfortunate events for giveaway Kava10)? This is not a FUD, but that's what I've heard from 6 users I spoke with in DMs. I'd like the community to comment, not Kava, please?
Is this a question or an assertion? I‘m fine with Kava. Worse experience elsewhere. And I‘m with Kava for more than one year. SCAMMERS - I 💩 on you!
If you cannot work out the first word of the sentence I wrote then you have a problem
Really depends on your definition of 'fuckup' Distribution of the prizes is often (or almost always) delayed longer than initially intended or advertised Often the rules of contests have not been tied down as tightly as they could leaving room for 'interpretation' of the rules leaving room for some users to game the system for their own benefit creating debate as to what should and shouldn't be allowed, resulting in some 'cheaters' still receiving prizes and sometimes some of the 'cheaters' disqualified.
Very true. Don’t have a problem with a few delays as long as cheaters are not rewarded. Unfortunately in the past kava has delayed results as well as rewarded cheaters
Broadly speaking this is what I'd consider a fuckup: 1. Setting an incentive without setting clear rules 2. Awarding payouts to bots 3. Not having infrastructure, technical ability to conduct incentive 4. Issue with incentive planning 5. Changing rules of the game mid play 6. Lack of transparency and evasive answers or lack of answers whatsoever
I feel cheaters are more of a concern that users and participants have than the team. They want a promotional event to attract attention and new users, a chance to test out the platform and find issues and get some big numbers to use in tweets, etc Weeding out cheaters is time consuming and takes devs away from what they would consider more important work, so to them there is little direct benefit to spending time on that aspect, but can have an indirect negative user experience, so it's finding a balance
On that basis I would agree most testnet events have suffered from one or more of those issues
I'm quite sure a Programming course freshman would be able to code a solution that checks if funds were transferred from kava1s.... Native wallet to 0x wallet (A) then from 0x (A) to another newly created 0x (B) then from 0x (B) to newly created 0x (C) and so on. Or perhaps lock it so you need to deposit $100 worth or only first wallet receiving funds from kava1sxxxxxxxx wallet is eligible. Or perhaps you have to hold funds there for a X period of time. All those things should be thought off 6 months ago before the incentive was planned. I asked all these questions months ago, hence once again my claim for evasive answers if any were given at all
I think I saw someone offer assistance with that on Discord
Обсуждают сегодня