An appeals review process for participants who did not receive a Goldfinch Flight Academy awards(#2)

Authors: Dava#2376, julia_jul#9550

Summary: we believe that the support and trust of the community is important to the Goldfinch team so this proposal has the main goal: define and check about 2656 appeals (without tier) of users, who did not receive awards for participation in Goldfinch Flight Academy. The basic theses on the workflow and evaluation of works are described below. As well as compensation to Leaders for reviewing appeals for verified appeals, a system that excludes fraud involving one or more leaders of appeals, fines for dishonest performance of duties by leaders, work schedule and other subtleties of the workflow.

The target and motivation:

Thousands of students of the Flight Academy who did not receive an award filed appeals in order to get the awards they deserved. The Appeal Leaders Team intends to investigate each of the appeals in order to look for honest participants who lost their rewards by mistake.

Verification process and reward levels:

Previously, the Goldfinch team developed a transparent and fair system for evaluating the work of participants in the Flight Academy, and we will adhere to it.

You can get acquainted with the criteria and distribution of awards at this link -

We thank the leaders of the Goldfinch team and active participants in the previous appeal review process for your opinions, we take into the requirements for awards (you can get acquainted here -An appeals review process for participants who did not receive a Goldfinch Flight Academy awards), and therefore the process for awarding and distributing awards is as follows:

Tier rewards and payout method:

6 - Completed most assessments and a limited number of tasks - 50 GFI. * 1 month
5 - Completed assessments as well as a few tasks and challenges - 150 GFI: 1/18
4 - Completed assessments as well as many tasks and challenges - 350 GFI: 1/18
3 - Completed assessments as well as most tasks and challenges - 700 GFI: 1/18
2 - Completed assessments and almost all tasks and challenges - 1500 GFI: 1/18
1 - Completed all assessments, tasks and challenges, and earned top scores - 2500 GFI: 1/18

Those who will be assigned level 6 will receive their reward without vesting, in the form of a one-time payment of 50 GFI. All those who receive level 5 and above are rewarded in equal shares for 18 months.

Let me remind you that 3% was allocated for awards to the participants of the Flight Academy. 2.90% has already been paid after the first review of the appeals. We believe that those who have received awards deserve them, and we also believe that those who have not yet received them deserve them as well. For our side, we guarantee the purity of the check and the full awareness of responsibility for the result of our work.

Weekly meetings:

Weekly meetings will take place every Saturday to report back to the community on Monday on the number of verified appeals and reward levels allocated.

Accounting for verified appeals:

Because the scoring and distribution system was not disclosed by the previous Appeal Review Team, we believe that we have no right to open such data. But since we want the work of Leaders and the verification process to be as open and transparent as possible, we will create a separate table with open access. No other data except for the nickname in the Discord and the status of the appeal check will not be published.

To avoid diverting the Leader’s attention from the main work (see the Schedule section), the final list of tiers will be published after the completion of the entire verification process.

For each leader on the cloud, a special document will be allocated with access for other Leaders, in which he will indicate all the verified cases with the decision made on them. This will help to monitor the progress and effectiveness of each leader individually.


Monday: Working day + progress report
Tuesday: Working day
Wednesday: Working day
Thursday: Working day
Friday: Working day
Saturday: Leadership meeting, report preparation for Monday
Sunday is a day off

*Working day - regular review of appeals.

Compensation to Leaders of Appeal:

The team that will check the appeals consists of 5 people. Each of the Leaders will work at their own pace, so it would be better to choose an hourly wage - 10 USDC/hour.

The maximum number of working hours per week for each Leader is 40 hours. For the convenience of counting hours, the Leader can use the time tracker and provide a report on the work done at the first request of any Leader or administrator. Payment for the work of leaders will be made within 3 days after the publication of the list of assigned tiers.

So that the review of appeals does not turn into a competition between Leaders, I propose the following: if one of the Leaders has checked his appeals, and the other has not yet, the leader can check the appeals from another list. But first he must tell all the Leaders about it.

The deadline for publishing the result of the review of appeals is August 24, 2022.

The system of penalties for leaders of appeals:

At any time, one of the Appeal Leader or administrator may ask the other Appeal Leader to account for any of the awarded (or not assigned) levels of awards. If it turns out that the level of awards was assigned (or not assigned) without reason, then the Leader receives warning. The Leader cannot receive more than 3 warnings per 100 audited appeals. For violation of any of the established rules, the Leader will be punished by the administration. It can be either deprivation of compensation or exclusion from the program.

In case that one of the Leaders is expelled for violating the rules, so as not to slow the verification process down, the maximum number of working hours per week may not be limited.

For various reasons, the leader may cease to fulfill his duties, in which case he leaves the Leaders’ team and no one else can take his place. In this case, he is obliged to warn other participants in the verification process about this in the appropriate (#Appeal Leaders) Discord channel.


Thanks Dava#2376 and julia_jul#9550 for a few further clarifications. However, it’s not clear to me that you addressed any of the concerns I raised earlier. Let me reiterate and try to add some additional clarification:

1/ Payment to the Appeal Leaders Team should be capped and linked to success
In my mind, the protocol should not dedicate more than a couple thousand USDC maximum to this endeavor. $10/hr seems reasonable, but we need to know the # of Appeals Leaders and a proposed cap on hours per leader. Ideally the team should also choose a target deadline, and payout should only happen upon successful delivery of project results by the target timeline.
Note to clarify: you seem to have capped the hours per week, but I would want to see a total hours cap. If there are 5 reviewers I’d propose a cap of $500 total per reviewer (approx 1 week of work, which is reasonable)

2/ GFI rewards should be capped
3% of GFI were allocated to Flight Academy. Approximately 2.90% have already been paid out. Total rewards for appeals should therefore not exceed more than 0.1% of GFI. The community would like to reserve at least some for future education programs, so ideally appeals rewards should be even less than 0.1% (<114285 GFI).
Note: I would like to not exceed 0.1% because I would like to save any additional GFI for incentivizing activities that will grow the protocol. I propose you simply distribute something like 0.08% proportionally, which after ruling out fraudsters I think would be 50-100 GFI per participant on average.

3/ I would like to see more details on vesting and the proposed mechanism for GFI payout
I’m not sure of the reasoning behind the 50 GFI per month or how the team proposes to handle setting up vesting contracts to handle these kinds of payouts. I think this is very complex to set up and warrants some clearer explanation / planning.
Note to clarify: I think you modified the vesting schedule somewhat, but I’m still not seeing any information on how you plan to handle the vesting contracts / payments.

4/ Miscellaneous scoring requirements should be made clear so that scoring aligns with the way scoring was conducted originally
a) Proper KYC and registration should have happened for anyone appealing in order for them to receive rewards.
b) Anyone completing just 1-2 assessments did not and should not qualify for rewards.
c) Any activities must have been submitted through the proper channels and attributed to the correct address in order to count towards rewards.
Note to clarify: I still don’t see any of this included in the new version unfortunately. I would like to see all of these explicitly added.

For the reasons above, I still can’t recommend the approval of this proposal.

Thanks Dava#2376 and julia_jul#9550 for the second version of the proposal.

However, after 8 days there is still no rough consensus around this proposal. I can also see a big comment from a member of Governance Council under the current version of the proposal, which still remains unanswered. Hence, I can’t recommend this proposal to be put up for a Snapshot.

Sup, guys.
As far as I know you are only going to review works that have not received any tier.
These accounts were banned and a reason was given for each ban, right?

So, if the assignment of tier is a subjective nature (because there was no system for evaluating), then the ban received only users who violated the rules.

Given that this is the second round of appeal, as well as the fact that you want to be compensated for their work.
Wouldn’t your job be:

  1. open an appeal
  2. open the table with the reasons for the ban
  3. look at it
  4. deny the appeal

If not, I will remind you that banned users have gone through three stages of review - detection of rule violation and evaluation → review of violation by community managers → aproove by Warbler Labs.


  1. Do you think your qualifications are higher than the three-step system that was before?
  2. Wouldn’t this be a precedent for subsequent submissions from other people who are unhappy with their tiers/unhappy with assigning tiers to other people and so on…?