Preview of TGE and documentation including MaidSafeCoin conversion process — call for questions & feedback

[JimCollinson]

@DavidMc0

Once the network is running, will it be possible for Autonomi to host their own form on the network to allow transition within the need for using Typeform?

Would be a nice option to have… all people would need is sufficient ANT to submit the form data, then they can claim their tokens.

It’s possible.

@DavidMc0

Also, would it be that hard for the foundation to have their own web form? Surely not a big technical challenge?

It’s more complex — from an admin and legal perspective — than it might appear on the surface.

Because then, the follow up questions to the Foundation are like:

@neo

If I put up a web page, I can then go and look at the webserver’s logs and get info like IP address, browser Info, URI, for each access to the web page.

And the Foundation then has personal data, and the psuedo data from the submission etc

[neo]

@JimCollinson

And the Foundation then has personal data, and the psuedo data from the submission etc

I was saying as an example of the information typeform is obtaining

[JimCollinson]

Yeah exactly… and I was just pointing out why the Foundation doesn’t want to be collecting that data (by spinning up it’s own server). And doesn’t currently have access to it.

[digipl]

I don’t see any real problem. Verifying that the Emaid/Maid->ANT transactions match is easy by analyzing the blockchains without needing the signatures to be public, and in the unlikely case that someone complains, it’s enough to verify the signature.

In any case, and between the option of signatures being public or not, I think the majority of us prefer that they are not.

[JimCollinson]

Exactly. Everything that would need to be publically verifiable is publically verifiable on-chain, permanently. MAID burnt, will match ANT airdropped etc.

@Runswick

They say they filled the form correctly, but the foundation asserts that tokens were airdropped correctly.

Again, all of this is on chain and can be verified by both the foundation and the individual.

[DavidMc0]

@Runswick

but accidentally pasted the wrong arbitrum address in the message without noticing

If someone did this, and also made the same mistake in the form, then it’s serious user error for TWICE not checking what they pasted as a destination to send ANT to. Who would be that careless? If anyone does that, it’s a lesson either to pay more attention, or find someone to manage their assets on their behalf.

@Runswick

Or maybe they accidentally submit the message rather than the signed message

This wouldn’t be a valid signature, so no ANT would be sent to the address. When the user notices they haven’t arrived, they can do the process correctly and claim their ANT.

@Runswick

They say they filled the form correctly, but the foundation asserts that tokens were airdropped correctly

Due to the way it’s done, hopefully nothing will go wrong, but everyone should be sure to check within 30 days. After this, if I understand correctly, any dispute would be hard to validate for MAID conversions, as the foundation will no longer have the signature the user provided to validate the destination address for the assets.

While the user could re-create the/a signature, if the foundation had nothing to compare it against, there would be no way to know if that was the signature initially provided by the user or not, which would be needed to detect whether there had been an error.

[DavidMc0]

@Runswick

Maybe people should be allowed a redo if they notice the error within the 30 days. Currently though it’s not clear that this is the case

They have until sometime in 2028, so it’s not an issue if they get this wrong and their first attempt isn’t valid. Of course they can’t re-do the burn, but they can re-do and re-submit the signed message to ensure the address details for receiving ANT are correct.

@Runswick

Maybe the message should be pushed that people submitting the form must check the airdrops and raise any queries within the 30 days while there’s a chance to fix errors or at least discover where the errors lie.

Yes, I think this makes sense.

[JimCollinson]

@Runswick

If this is stuck to, unless people can be contacted by the foundation, I suspect at least some people will make this mistake and their tokens will be lost. They may not even know why, depending upon the circumstances.

There is a double edged sword here, and a reason we did not include contact information in the forum submission: protecting privacy.

All of the information submitted is pseudonymous, and the Foundation cannot identity
individauls (making it into personally identifiable information) from it unless it is process with some other element, usch as an email address for example. Not having, nor requiring this information therefore means you can be more sure of, and in more in control control over your privacy.

Obviously, it means the Foundation therefore cannot contact you about your sumbission. Which is the second edge to that sword. But what you can do, if you do not recieve the airdrop in the schedule as expected, is contact the Foundation — which keeps you in control.

But yes, the onus is on you to manage your assets, follow the steps, and sumbit the information correctly.

But I think the balance is just about right here.

[DavidMc0]

@Runswick

it won’t necessarily be possible after the 30 days

Good point; the foundation would have no idea if someone is trying a duplicate claim if the don’t have a record of the claims completed and signed messages after 30 days.

So, just be careful, and check the ANT come through, and contact the foundation before 30 days if there’s a problem so you can ensure they keep your signed message until any issue is resolved.