Modification: LDN Rules - Adding 60+X days of github registration to application criteria

[Carohere]

Issue Description

There have been lots of accounts applying for LDN right after registration recently. Such behavior caused many accounts being flagged. Reputedly due to the violation of Github terms - lack of any other github activity. In other words, these accounts can be considered as registered for the sole purpose of LDN application. This prevented potential DC abuse and greatly limited the use of non-compliant accounts, but it also impacted certain normal users.

Unfortunately this is GITHUB issue and outside our scope for being able to control. 

It is unpredictable when github will solve this problem. Hence it is more efficient and direct to make changes in the sections that filecoin can control.

Datacap applications are currently processed in three ways

1. LDN Application
2. Direct allocation - Filcoin Plus
3. 32GB giveaway for GitHub accounts over 180 days which I think LDN could adopt a similar way from.

*With the Fil-E project going on, encrypted enterprise data will be introduced by SP into the network. I assume that a new repository will be opened so this proposal currently has no impact on it.

Impact

Better prevent DC abuse, enhance UX and reduce the overhead of community members especially for the governance team.

Proposed Solution(s)

• Only github account registration reaches 90 days (TBD) can apply for LDN.
• While waiting for the changes to be technically completed, the governance team can manually close applications from ineligible accounts.

Timeline

The proposal can be implemented once the technical team adds the time limit to the LDN application criteria.

Technical dependencies

Changes to the LDN application system.

End of POC checkpoint (if applicable)

Recommend that we review applications after one and three months to determine if the expectations are being met.

Risks and mitigations

Risk-free.

Related Issues

Here are some information on slack about this issue.
https://filecoinproject.slack.com/archives/C01DLAPKDGX/p1661938219411249

[Carohere]

Ninety days is just the period I feel appropriate. Any comments are welcome.

[jiangbinyi]

@Carohere Hi Carol thanks for paying attention and bringing this up. It is noticeable that this recent update from GITHUB have impacted several accounts and applications which gave clients a bad experience of onboarding data into Filecoin. In terms of compliance, the 90-day github registration suggestion definitely rules out malicious applications in advance and reduces DataCap abuse. On the flip side, clients are facing high possibility of accounts being flagged and losing application as well as longer waiting periods after registering GH accounts. The risk now is that a new period of instability could undermine confidence just as we are pushing for GH account review. So I wonder is there any better options like recommending activities on GH before submitting applications than efficiency being compromised and causing damage to clients? Thanks!

[newwebgroup]

I do not agree that this method can solve the problem of LDN abuse to a certain extent,
On the contrary, I think that the limit of GitHub registration time will become the threshold for many companies to be unable to apply for LDN, because the vast majority of companies applying for LDN do not have GitHub accounts.

If I am an evil doer, let's assume the situation after the FIP is passed
Before this FIP passed, my evil cost was 0
After this FIP is passed, my evil cost is only $10-20.
It's not difficult to buy a GitHub account that has been registered for more than 90 days. I can register for as long as I want. It only takes me a little more money.
What I want to express is that raising the threshold will not stop bad people from doing evil, but will only prevent more good people from joining.

I think the core problems we need to solve are:
How to get rid of the problem of GitHub account being marked? (filecoin communicates with GitHub? Filecoin builds its own LDN application platform? Or other solutions)
The fact that many accounts are marked by GitHub is a problem in itself. It is not friendly to LDN application and filplus experience, and it has great potential risks for filplus's future commercialization. I think the governance team needs to think seriously about this problem. Maybe we need an LDN application platform to replace GitHub.

[Carohere]

Datacap applications are currently processed in three ways

1. LDN Application
2. Direct allocation - Filcoin Plus
3. 32GB giveaway for GitHub accounts over 180 days which I think LDN could adopt a similar way from.

Sorry the most accurate terms should be ↓

[Carohere]

Hello @jiangbinyi, happy to know that you are also aware of this issue and the huge risk it brings to the community.

So personally I think LDN applicants appear to be in two groups 1) regular clients 2) new clients.

For 1) most of them are in web3 related industries and have account way over 90 days. They are already engaged in the community and are less likely to be involved in DC abuse.

As for 2) I don't think any rookie has the ability to understand the whole process and start applying on the same day or the next few days after they join github. This is obviously unreasonable and very likely to raise suspicions about them involving DC abuse. Clients need to understand the whole filecoin model and mechanism for the sake of their own data security. I doubt anyone would just leave their data in a place they don't even know about especially for non-web 3 companies.

I do understand the concerns you have. But if this proposal is approved it won't involve a long period of instability. As for the the recommended activities, I think you need to contact GitHub support team to find out. The reason these accounts are flagged is also just alleged. I don't think i'm capable of giving you any help on that.

Last, this whole proposal is under the assumption that it is technically possible to add github registration time limit in. @Kevin-FF-USA Is there anyone I can contact to help me confirm this? Thanks 🙌

[Carohere]

@newwebgroup hmm what do you mean by buying a Github account? Like how and from whom? Could you explain it in more detail? Not sure how is it possible but if it is I think goverment team needs to be concerned about this. @dkkapur @raghavrmadya

The fact that many accounts are marked by GitHub is a problem in itself. It is not friendly to LDN application and filplus experience, and it has great potential risks for filplus's future commercialization. I think the governance team needs to think seriously about this problem. Maybe we need an LDN application platform to replace GitHub.

GitHub is a project management and code versioning system as well as a social network platform made for developers. It's not only used for Filecoin. Waiting for github to respond to this will be long. But developing our own platform I think it will even take longer. Moreover, no platform is perfect at the beginning and it requires a lot more time to be improved. This not only leads to long waiting period but also increases the cost of operation and maintenance. I think your suggestion is feasible but just not now. When filecoin is fully grown and reaches a more complete consensus, it is perfectly fine for officials to develop a new platform. Creating more chaos in an already chaotic situation isn't ideal. I don't think relocating to another platform is a good option.

As for filplus's future commercialization, I think only real data applications are beneficial for filecoin's prospect. Potential DC abuse applications are less likely to store "humanity's most important information". Junk data will only make FIL cheaper and cheaper, which basically means that there will be even fewer and fewer participants.

BTW this proposal will be discussed at tonight's governance call. Would be great if you could join.

[newwebgroup]

@Carohere
Sorry, my spoken English is poor. We can continue to communicate here.

How to get a qualified GitHub account?

1. You can directly purchase GitHub accounts that have been registered for a long time. As far as I know, in China, you can search "GitHub account" through "Taobao", "Xianyu" and other software, and you can see relevant sellers.
   At the same time, you can also buy a qualified GitHub account through the telegraph channel.
2. You can rent someone else's GitHub account to apply for LDN. Similarly, you can get the answers you want through the above channels.

As you said, it is already very chaotic here. Filplus has many bugs, GitHub also has too many uncertainties, and there are many cheaters here. Everything looks terrible.
However,
If we don't choose to improve the status quo now, how can we reach the day when filecoin grows into a platform with strong consensus?
A bright future is too far away.
There is a Chinese saying that "the best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago. The second best time is now."
Costs and difficulties should not be excuses.
Filecoin has a lot of grants. As long as the demand is reasonable, I think the governance team, including PL & FF, is willing to pay as long as it can make the current situation better.

[Carohere]

Hi @newwebgroup, really appreciate you for taking the time to explain it to me. The governance team also confirmed this. Somehow it is something that has been always around...

As you said, it is already very chaotic here. Filplus has many bugs, GitHub also has too many uncertainties, and there are many cheaters here. Everything looks terrible.
However,
If we don't choose to improve the status quo now, how can we reach the day when filecoin grows into a platform with strong consensus?
A bright future is too far away.

Yes. The community does look terrible. Definitely agree with you on this. Flaws everywhere and it needs to be changed. There are people cheating the system. No matter how high the bar is, they will eventually figure it out. But that doesn't mean setting the bar is wrong. We need to evaluate what kind of changes are most appropriate.

Costs and difficulties should not be excuses.
Filecoin has a lot of grants. As long as the demand is reasonable, I think the governance team, including PL & FF, is willing to pay as long as it can make the current situation better.

I don't think the cost is the problem, it's more about the timing. Filecoin is not ready to switch to another platform atm. The preliminary setup for the new platform is estimated to take at least six months given the response I got in the Governance call. And there is no one who can possibly say that the new platform will not encounter more complex problems than here. Google was not perfect at the beginning either. Leaving GitHub is not the right choice at present, how to solve the current problem within the existing resources is the first priority.

[Carohere]

I also feel my proposal is a bit too theoretical now. Agree with @dkkapur, it needs some changes to better suit the needs of the applicants. I will check the second governance call soon to see if there are any more comments I could take to improve it 🙏🙏.

[Mario4750]

We agree that clients need to understand what filecoin is before they are comfortable storing data. @Carohere Thank you for noticing the potential DC fraud involved with some accounts. But 90 days is too long and many clients are not able to meet this requirement. We recommend changing the account registration duration to 60 days

[NDLABS-Leo]

The following are some of the views as an SP as well as an SP technical service provider:
Recently there has been a large number of LDN applications, all from newly registered Github accounts. These applications are not only more difficult for the official team to review, but also disrupt the community norm to some extent. Limiting the registration time of Github accounts used for LDN application forms can alleviate this situation to some extent.
But from the actual situation of clients we have served, it is true that they have real data storage needs, but they may not be the common users of Github.
So from our perspective, asking for 7 days to 30 days is an acceptable range for us. We hope to hear more from the community about the time limit as well.

[jamerduhgamer]

Duration can be 60 instead of 90. 7 - 30 days feels a little too short but regardless of the duration, we will just see a large number of applications again in 30 - 60 days when the brand new accounts created now have matured.

The purpose of this requirement is because we just need some kind of restriction in general to reduce the amount of LDNs being spammed to GitHub right now from brand new accounts.

This change is needed as a temporary measure until we determine other processes as well on how to handle clients with real valuable data that do not have GitHub accounts (which are currently being developed and discussed).

[TimL-D]

The duration should be 180 just like the requirement for automatic Datacap grant. Many of the disappeared applications were filled out in almost the same format. I find it's hard not to suspect that most of them were applied in bulk...

Many community members are complaining about governance team's efficiency. How to improve the overall network power is what we need to focus on. Reducing suspicious applications is a good way to maintain a stable and sustainable ecosystem.

[UnionLabs2020]

The current number of applications approved per week has not increased equally with the increase in applications. Instead, the influx of applications for temporary accounts has left many normal customer requests with delays in response. This is the part the community complains about.
We support this modification because it will help @raghavrmadya to process more trustable applications with limited working time rather than wasting time on invalid applications that may be deleted at any time.

[Carohere]

I just got time to follow up the second GC. Recapping on points that have been mentioned so far.

@jamerduhgamer, agree with u on preventing potential fraud but I don't think we should apply the same criteria for LDN applicants and commentators. It should be seperated as you said. Filecoin is an open community where everyone can share their opinions. As long as the comment is not rude or discriminatory, I think it‘s all acceptable. Regarding the SFI dataset you mentioned, I wouldn't say bash is the right term nor the comment blocks its approval. Piknik could've been more specific about sp distrubution at the very begining. It is more important to focus on the problems that exist within the application than to regulate the person commenting.

Many of the disappeared applications were filled out in almost the same format. I find it's hard not to suspect that most of them were applied in bulk...

Back to the topic this proposal is intended to limit DC abuse and safeguard UX. Agree with @TimL-D, and james i believe this's the case you mentioed in the call. We all share the same concerns. This modification will indeed add complexity but to be fair the LDN application format is also designed to judge whether the company applying is eligible to be granted for DC. As what I have mentioned repeatedly. There are people cheating the system and no matter how high the bar is, they will eventually figure it out. But that doesn't mean setting the bar is wrong.

@Steven.Doe, i'm sorry in advance if you're reading this. I dont know which steven you are :( Deep has already confirmed about account dealing in a previous GC. It's very sad to know ppl would try this hrad to cheat... and i don't think there's anything we can do about it... As someone who has lived in both East and West, I completely get the inconvenience caused by vpn. But github only requires google account(which is vpn needed) when registering, there is no need to have vpn on after that. Maybe you should suggest your clients try it out, it might help a bit. Besides, this is also why I think it is inaccurate to attribute the reasons about accounts being flagged to vpn.

I agree with enhancing due dligence and getting more direct involvement from notaries. This would be beneficial to the overall network. There are currently two proposals open for this #587 #602. I have commented under the GC post for tomorrow. They will be discussed together with this proposal if there is enough time. Would love to hear your opinion out 🙌

This change is needed as a temporary measure until we determine other processes as well on how to handle clients with real valuable data that do not have GitHub accounts (which are currently being developed and discussed).

Agree with @dannyob @AlexxNica, the eventual solution to the current issue will only be a total seperate platform with no limitation from github. But as @Kevin-FF-USA specified that's not something gonna happen on the current road map. @jamerduhgamer agree. This proposal could be used as a temporary measure until then. Btw may I ask where the discussion is? I would love to join if it's an open talk.

The current number of applications approved per week has not increased equally with the increase in applications. Instead, the influx of applications for temporary accounts has left many normal customer requests with delays in response. This is the part the community complains about.
We support this modification because it will help @raghavrmadya to process more trustable applications with limited working time rather than wasting time on invalid applications that may be deleted at any time.

@UnionLabs2020 agree. @AlexxNica @dannyob increasing applications doesn't mean the approval rate/amount(which can be seen as the overall power) will grow. And tecnically yes. This will help RG a bit since the decision is made by the governance team given the community inputs after all. What it means more to me is that if this proposal get implemented, it will also make everyone's time here more appreciated. Due diligence from notaries and comments from community members are time consuming as well. It would be a waste of everyone's time if the account simply disappeared one day due to instability.

Thanks all for sharing and I'll (try to) share more thoughts about the duration part before the GC tomorrow 🙏❤️

[dkkapur]

This also makes me think we need to start tracking GitHub participation in a reputation system of sorts for the Fil+ community. I.e., which accounts are applying, responding/commenting, posting discussions and issues. Even having this as a separate leaderboard could be useful/helpful in indexing input and flagging applications for follow-up?

[Carohere]

@dkkapur sounds good to me. Maybe it would be better to open a new proposal or discussion to get more community input?

Forgot to mention yesterday just thought of the alternatives you shared on GC. Social media such as linkedin can be seen as proof of a company's existence. But there are limitations regardless of which platform is utilized. Most companies in the East don't register on Linkedin, and most companies in the West don't even know what weibo or wechat official is. Without a unified platform as a reference will most likely cause more arguments... And certifying on different social medias can run into problems such as handle change as mentioned by @AlexxNica. I think these solutions will add more complexity than simply identify applicants with registration time, and increase overhead of community which is contrary to what we want. The perfect solution to the current account problem must be a UI developed entirely by the protocol lab or filecoin foundation itself(which is not in the time frame yet). As an inclusive community how to make the most efficient changes and raise the price of FIL is our ultimate goal.

Again I'm just sharing what i think is appropriate welcome disagreements👐

[Carohere]

Agree with @jamerduhgamer, @stoibers 7-30 days is not enough. But 180 days seem a bit too long. It won't take that much time for clients to learn about filecoin (@TimL-D just personal talk please correct me if i'm wrong) and might actually gonna block them from joining in.

Revised proposal

Changing the duration to 60+X

- X is defined as the number of days from the submission date to the approval date of the proposal.
- To avoid time zone differences, the proposal was submitted at 16:02 (UTC) 4 September, hence the submission date is Sep, 4th.

For example, if this proposal is passed on 20 September then the Github account should be older than 76 (60+16) days.

It has been a while since I submitted this proposal and the value is diminishing day by day. It would be pointless if it took 90 days to get through and that's why i'm adding the variable in.