TLDR: There are some advantages to having a process in place in case our usual RAP process fails.
If, somehow, a report gets approved but has fatal mistakes or a rating is not accurate, it will be useful to give the affected protocols or any user the opportunity to step in and raise their voice.
The following proposal outlines a possible implementation of a Report Dispute Resolution (RDR) process for Prime Rating. This process should only be used in extreme cases meaning that we would need to define clear situation(s) where a dispute request is allowed. This process would need to be started in a timely manner after we publish/approve a report (for example within 10 days after report approval). The RDR process should not be used by protocols to claim a better score but rather provide a formal process to fix errors, in case we miss crucial points. The reason for implementing a RDR process is because, even though Governors are entirely responsible for their governance decisions, it will be beneficial to have another layer of protection if/when Governance fails. Hopefully, this will never be the case but it’s good to have a plan B if it does. It also gives protocols the responsibility to verify and take ratings seriously.
Also, with the upcoming API product that we are going to launch in the next 3-5 months, more users will use this information in their DYOR and it becomes even more important that crucial mistakes can be processed in a formal, efficient, and fast way.
The idea is to create a decentralized framework, where users/protocols have the possibility to report an official dispute for already published fundamental reports. The RDR is initiated by posting a proposal in our Governance forum outlining the details of the dispute (a template could be used for that).
This process will be permissionless and can be started by anyone. Disputes will be open to discussion for 1 week, with a possible extension to 2 weeks if necessary. This gives the community and Prime members enough time to verify contentious points. After the discussion phase, the RDR will be put up for a Snapshot vote with a timeframe of 3 days for voting. The Snapshot allows Governors & Reviewers to vote for the following options:
- RDR claim correct, report invalid (new report gets written)
- RDR claim correct, but report still valid (report gets updated)
- RDR claim false, report still valid
Proposed RDR Request - Qualification
A protocol can file a dispute if it finds a combination of wrong content that severely impacts the result. An existing report can be challenged if one or more of the following points apply:
- The report contains false claims
- The report misses highly important information
- Report data is utterly outdated (12+ months)
In addition, the impact of the above must be significant, so that:
- The score is off by >10% (25 points for full FA report)
- The content is damaging the image of the protocol (e.g. report declares the protocol as a scam when it’s not true)
When these scenarios apply, the affected protocol can initiate the RDR process.
This is an initial draft of a possible Report Dispute Resolution (RDR) process and aims to collect feedback from the Prime Rating community. I am looking forward to having more feedback in order to start implementing this process.