Formalize a delisting procedure

[JonathonDunford]

Issue by JonathonDunford Friday Mar 09, 2018 at 20:00 GMT Originally opened as https://github.com/forkdelta/tokenbase/issues/471

---

At ForkDelta, user safety is our first priority.

It has come to our attention that there are several tokens listed on the platform that may now be defunct or abandoned.

We think this represents a risk to users and would like to make an effort to remove these "bad" tokens, but we want to make sure that we don't damage any reputable projects reputation in the process.

So, we need your help! We have come up with a procedure for delisting tokens and proposed it in the issue below, but we need your feedback!

How do you verify "scam" tokens? When do you think a token should be delisted?

Read the proposed procedure and leave your feedback by commenting below.

---

Proposed procedure:

Delisting Procedure

1. Open an issue titled "Intent to delist: TICKER" where TICKER is the ticker of the token you would like delisted.

2. Fill in the description of the issue with your detailed reasoning behind why the token should be delisted. This includes, but not limited to:

   • Plagiarization (images, text, etc.)
   • Affiliation with other verified scams
   • Project abandonment
   • Order book manipulation by contract owner
   • Falsifying links
   • etc.

   2a) If there are reasons against the token being delisted, please detail them as well. This includes, but not limited to:

   • Physical address
   • Social media activity
   • Affiliation with other companies
   • Large amount of token holders
   • etc.

   2b) If there is anything else to take into consideration, please include it as well. Were there certain things you couldn't verify?

3. A ForkDelta contributor with labeling access will label your request with 'delist' and assign a member of the team to look at it.

4. A member of the ForkDelta team will thoroughly vet this concern and verify information provided. The team member should outline any other reasonings for or against that they can think of as well as any other information that would be important.

5. The team member will make a decision:

   5a) If no solid reasoning is found to delist the token, the team member will explain their findings in the issue and close the issue.

   5b) If solid reasoning to delist the token is found, the team member will explain their findings and why the token should be delisted. Then, the team member should tag @freeatnet and @JonathonDunford on the issue.

   5c) If the team member is unsure whether or not to delist the token, the team member should detail their findings and reasoning for and against. The issue should then be tagged with 'help wanted' and assigned to @freeatnet , @JonathonDunford , @Kryptoniq. One of these team members will then look at the issue and start with 4. If a decision still can not be made, move to 6.

   If 5b, move to 6 If 5c, follow instructions in 5c

6. A member from the ForkDelta team will attempt to find contact info for a team member from the project up for delisting.

   6a) If there is no possible method for communication with the project, move to 7.

   6b) If a method for communication is found, a ForkDelta team member will reach out to someone from the project up for delisting.

   • If there is no response after 3 days, move to 7.
   • If there is a response, the project team will be instructed to address the concerns outlined in the issue by writing a comment in the issue.

7. The ForkDelta team has determined their is viable reasoning for this token to be delisted. @freeatnet or @JonathonDunford will create a poll using https://app.gh-polls.com/ that allows users to vote on either delisting the token or keeping it. This poll will be posted in the issue above.

8. ForkDelta will announce this poll on Discord, Telegram, Twitter, and Reddit and allow users to vote on the issue for 3 days. Users that vote are urged to explain their reasoning.

9. At the end of the 3 days, ForkDelta will tally up the data from the poll and act according to the interests of the community.

   9a) If there haven't been any votes after 3 days, or the votes are tied, ForkDelta team members will make the final decision.

   9b) If there is manipulation with the poll data, ForkDelta reserves the right to make the final decision.

10. If a token is delisted, ForkDelta will make an announcement about the confirmed delisting with a summarized reasoning why that includes poll data. Delisting will occur in 3 days.

11. To delist a token, edits must be made to https://github.com/forkdelta/tokenbase and https://github.com/forkdelta/forkdelta.github.io

[JonathonDunford]

Comment by JonathonDunford Friday Mar 09, 2018 at 20:11 GMT

---

Need opinions @freeatnet @Kryptoniq

[JonathonDunford]

Comment by Kryptoniq Friday Mar 09, 2018 at 20:23 GMT

---

You have a comprehensive procedure here. 👍 I'll chip in when I have any addition.

[JonathonDunford]

Comment by rkngmtl Thursday Mar 22, 2018 at 21:47 GMT

---

Here are some thoughts, take them with a glacier of salt.

1.) Set up a means of providing feedback that doesn't require setting up a GitHub account.

2.) Primer tokens, or old(er) versions of existing tokens should be knifed. Example: Yesterday vs. Day

3.) Might as well ask that delist Requesters provide citations to all the information requested in Items 2 and 2(a). The Requester will theoretically already be accessing such information and saving URLs at the same time would be easy and take the back-end workload of off FD Team Members reviewing such requests. This won't completely obviate the review investigation process, it's likely more information will need to be sought depending on the circumstances, but may help ease the burden to some extent.

4.) With respect to the polling process detailed in Items 7-9(b) (and mentioned in 9(b)); theoretically, would it not be difficult to vote out a shitcoin that had big community support? How will such "manipulation" be detected? How will such manipulation be addressed if it is detected? If the ultimate decision to delist falls on FD in the end, it seems unnecessary to to even bother with a polling process altogether. If the devs do not reach out to FD's communications and the community members fail to voice their positions, just delist the shitcoin. No need to vote on it.

5.) An appeals process of some sort could remedy any latent bitching caused by my suggestion #4. I would imagine it unlikely that anyone from a shitcoin team would take the initiative to appeal their delisting; however, on the chance that a legitimate project were poised to be delisted, this would give the token an opportunity to petition FD to review their decision. If a token no longer appears to have a dedicated team, yet is still actively traded by community members, perhaps the onus could be placed on such members to mount an appeal if they truly wished to keep the token listed.

[JonathonDunford]

Comment by jammersdublin Monday Mar 26, 2018 at 22:18 GMT

---

keen to help on this, as i've been stung a few times.

so there's a couple of scenarios where I think delisting would 100% make sense, as soon as something is reported and verified

1. the smart contract is compromised. an example is dimoncoin, https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dimoncoin/ (listed on forkdelta as FUD) allows people to make unlimited tokens. this is up at https://forkdelta.github.io/#!/trade/FUDD-ETH

2. a coin goes scam, such as https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/uahpay/ which basically did a cash grab, shut down all social media channels, emails etc and didn't deliver a thing, so the coin is pointless but listed at https://forkdelta.github.io/#!/trade/UAHPAY-ETH

3. you have a coin that is using a name for a coin, but isn't it. ie https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/mintcoin/ is a standalone altcoin (not erc20), but there is a MINT coin, which has nothing to do with that, at https://forkdelta.github.io/#!/trade/MINT-ETH. People see MINT on CMC, come to deltafork, buy something that isn't it