I want to bring up something— the leaderboard definitely needs some adjustments. Those who are truly dedicated to researching robot-related innovations and consistently producing high-quality content have been working on this even before the official event started, supporting this direction from the early days. However, the current ranking system doesn't seem to reflect the value of such long-term contributions. This isn't very fair to those who have genuinely invested effort. Could you reconsider the scoring mechanism?
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
24 Likes
Reward
24
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
ParallelChainMaxi
· 13h ago
What you said makes sense; early entrants indeed got overshadowed.
View OriginalReply0
DefiEngineerJack
· 01-09 13:28
well *actually* if you look at the mechanics here—early contributors getting sidelined is peak centralized thinking. formal verification of contribution timestamps would fix this in about five minutes, just saying
Reply0
SchrodingerPrivateKey
· 01-09 13:09
Basically, the leaderboard is just looking down on veteran players; those who were involved early on actually end up at a disadvantage.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-e19e9c10
· 01-09 12:03
I think this issue hits the nail on the head; early contributors definitely deserve to be recognized.
View OriginalReply0
DaoGovernanceOfficer
· 01-09 11:56
*sigh* empirically speaking, this is just another case of flawed token-weighted rankings not accounting for historical contribution... the data suggests early adopters get systematically undervalued. happens every cycle tbh
Reply0
APY追逐者
· 01-09 11:38
Early movers have indeed been overlooked; this ranking system really needs to be improved.
View OriginalReply0
InfraVibes
· 01-09 11:34
The ranking thing really is true; early people being overlooked is truly heartbreaking.
I want to bring up something— the leaderboard definitely needs some adjustments. Those who are truly dedicated to researching robot-related innovations and consistently producing high-quality content have been working on this even before the official event started, supporting this direction from the early days. However, the current ranking system doesn't seem to reflect the value of such long-term contributions. This isn't very fair to those who have genuinely invested effort. Could you reconsider the scoring mechanism?