Verify MISO Launchpad projects using a TCR

Summary

Curate and verify the projects launching on MISO launchpad in a community-driven and decentralized way using a Kleros Curate TCR.

Abstract

MISO Launchpad currently does not offer a transparent way to verify that the projects listed are not scams. We suggest using a Kleros Curate TCR to verify projects in an open and decentralized way and either block the non-compliant project from being listed or inform the users that projects have been properly verified by the community.

Motivation

MISO is a place for projects and communities to launch new tokens using a suite of battle-tested open-source smart contracts for a successful initial sale and deployment. Any project and non-technical team can benefit from MISO’s audited smart contracts to earn trust and promote their launch but being listed as a MISO deployed token or on MISO marketplace does not guarantee anything about the legitimacy, quality, honesty and truthfulness of the project and the information it shared.

Having several project tokens launched by MISO turning out to be scams or really poor quality projects could endanger the reputation of the platform while keeping the control of the whitelisting of projects in the hands of a few could go against the decentralization ethos of Sushiswap.

In order to inform and protect MISO users, we propose deploying a Token Curated Registry (TCR) dedicated to verifying or vetting projects requesting to launch their token on MISO launchpad. Indeed, this solution offers a good compromise between making the listing completely permissionless but potentially overloaded with scam tokens and having the due diligence of projects be centralized but increasing the risk of cronyism and making it non scalable.

The “MISO Verified Projects” TCR can be used to verify, on a first level, the information about a specific project (Name, token name, ticker, social media accounts, website, etc…). However, the most interesting use case is to use it to verify the legitimacy of a project to be launched on MISO. There are then 2 ways to enforce to use the “MISO Verified Projects” TCR in concordance with the Launchpad:

  • Either use it directly as the “Allowed/Blocked” list for projects to be listed on MISO. This means a project who has been rejected when submitting to the TCR could not be listed on the Launchpad.

  • Or, use it to display useful information to the users such as a “Verified” Badge that ensures them that a specific project has been properly vetted.

image
Examples of Kleros Curate TCR Integration: Omen’s “Verified Market” badge (left) and Zerion’s “Verified Token” badge (right)

Kleros community has a good history of being able to unearth scam projects like the famous example of the Baerchain scam (link in the References below as I can’t add more than 2 links).

Specification

A Kleros Curate list would be created by defining the list title, parameters and entry fields required. A specific set of guidelines (called the primary document) would be written to act as acceptance criteria for a project and any people looking to challenge the entry of a project in the registry would do so according to these rules. The list can be deployed on Ethereum mainnet or on xDAI/Polygon (to be deployed in the next month) depending on the level of security required.

The MISO launchpad would then read from the “MISO Verified Projects” TCR to either display the project as an upcoming sale or add a “Verified” badge to it.

Kleros Curate is a dapp that can be used to create open curated registries of just about anything using financial incentives and Kleros dispute resolution technology to ensure a list stays on topic and that each entry is compliant to the predefined acceptance criteria. Anyone can submit a project and its information with a deposit. The submission goes through a challenge period.

  • If no one challenges it, it is automatically accepted into the list. The submitter deposit is unlocked.
  • If someone challenges it by putting up a deposit, then it goes to Kleros Court for arbitration. The winner of the dispute will earn the loser’s deposit minus the arbitration fee.

It is also possible to make a removal request for an entry already accepted into the registry.

The deposits are denominated in the native token of the blockchain used (ETH, xDAI, MATIC) and the financial incentives of a legitimate challenge + the benefits of being verified and listed are sufficient to ensure the quality of the registry.

Feel free to ask questions here and give feedback to improve this proposal

References

8 Likes

Hey @Jrag love your proposal, I totally agree it’s a bit of a catch 22 between having the team unilaterally approve launchpad auctions and having the miso launchpad entirely open. Having a community driven and open platform to perform some form of vetting would further distinguish the miso launchpad from other platforms. I’m not too familiar with how Kleros functions so I’m going to read up on it and bring up your proposal at the upcoming Sushi Forum on Thursday(9pm UTC). If you can make it I’d love to have you on to talk at the sushi forum, It’s an open call where community members discuss the past weeks news and proposals with each other in a relaxed setting. If you’re not able to make it tomorrow, no worries just try to let me know! :sushi: :turtle:

4 Likes

If you can make it I’d love to have you on to talk at the sushi forum

Alright, I’ll try to make it there :+1:

2 Likes

Thanks for this proposal @Jrag

I shared some ideas on how to deal with the risk of scams on MISO here

I think the simplest thing to start off would be to 1) have a prominent disclaimer on each token sale page that states that projects are unvetted and encourages users to do their due diligence and 2) enable comments on each token sale page so community members can offer caution if need be.

I’m a bit familiar with Kleros via Omen. I’m open to the idea, but it feels like it may be an over-engineered solution that adds too much complexity. It’s hard to define rigid criteria for a project and there’s different types of potential scams.

I think ultimately it will be on users to do their due diligence and ideally either the SushiSwap team or some independent body can help vet projects or at least give a stamp of approval to “select” projects that are clearly legit and give them more prominence in the UI.

2 Likes

These are valid concerns and your suggestions in the other thread are indeed a step in the right direction.

  1. have a prominent disclaimer on each token sale page that states that projects are unvetted and encourages users to do their due diligence

I support this type of disclaimer fully. But my experience tells me that this will not be enough to make retail users do their research when they don’t have the time, skills or incentive to do it. My proposal “outsources” this due diligence to an extremely meticulous “decentralized risk team” which is financially incentivized to spot lies in projects and then relay their assessment to the the retail user.

(Look at the type of evidence (F/G/H) shared in this scam case to understand the difference in due diligence level)

  1. enable comments on each token sale page so community members can offer caution if need be.

Without a very solid moderation or sybil resistance tool, this is an invitation to troll and FUD any project people don’t like, where the few informed messages will be buried in a sea of low-quality comments. Sounds good on paper but I have never seen a crypto project implement a decent comment section for the moment.

it feels like it may be an over-engineered solution that adds too much complexity

I have to disagree on this one because I can set up that TCR in 5mn and you can read from it directly or through a subgraph in a few lines.
From the PoV of a MISO user wanting to launch a project, it would be just a matter of going to the TCR, click “Submit project”, fill the information required and click “send” with the ETH deposit required. Then, if your project is legit, you just wait a week for it to be accepted and you’re reimbursed automatically.

It’s hard to define rigid criteria for a project and there’s different types of potential scams.

It is the hardest part. Though I would argue that right now the rules the Sushiswap team is using to select projects are not open and transparent and doing this work is worth it.

And it is because it is hard that you want to involve a subjective oracle such as Kleros in case of disagreement because it is able to handle such complexities and debates in a transparent manner compared to a centralized decision.

either the SushiSwap team or some independent body can help vet projects or at least give a stamp of approval to “select” projects that are clearly legit and give them more prominence in the UI.

That would be a solution but it is the one I am trying to avoid.
Sushiswap team (even if anon) vetting projects expose them to unnecessary legal risk and add important workload to their plate which could be spent on building.
That 3rd party independent body you are suggesting is exactly what I am recommending: the TCR and the community ensuring its quality is a decentralized unbiased 3rd party which you will have trouble to find elsewhere.

I hope this clarifies my position. Yes, the simplest solution is doing nothing and vetting projects in a centralized way with a “Warning” sticker but it is not the best one at scale and in terms of alignment with the ecosystem ethics.

4 Likes

If there’s a good way to define/vet and a body willing to do that work, it could work. It’s just hard for me to see exactly what that would look like.

It seems a Twitter verification (like Gitcoin does) could prevent outright identity scams. So have listed roles e.g., founder, advisor etc and require each individual to verify their identity via Twitter. Come to think of it, this may be a critical feature.

An endorser feature might help too e.g., individuals could “endorse” a project on MISO, verifying their identity through Twitter. Ultimately, I’m only going to invest in something that either 1) already has strong traction/product/community 2) I know/believe in the team and/or 3) people whose judgement I trust vouch for it.