I have considered this possibility throughout the creation of the project (and most other ways of trying to game the system), but I don’t see it as being a major issue.
It made sense, alright.
Now I wanted to know more about the parameter of "scam project". What factors determine a project as scam and legit? We can safely assume dev leaving project and radio silent on all of their media is a clear sign of scam, as well as fake team details, and insurance claim for such should be rejected. But what about annon?
Suppose there's this project called ABC, with anonymous team, for whatever reason they give whenever asked about it, certainly it is a flag, but again, we can't be sure about it. Hence, we apply for FORS, just in case.
Considering that you leave decision to 50 people or so to determine a claim to be approved or not, the outcome can be heavily subjective. Most people will flag project like this as a scam, and knowing this fact from the beginning yet still proceeding can be considered as investor's own fault, thus claim should be rejected. On the other hand, from the eye of the said investor, this is the very reason they apply FORS, because ABC is a hit or miss.
So applying FORS as a safenet, while the decision is heavily subjective, is rather counterproductive, isn't it?
Owner’s replyI think perhaps you are getting mixed up between the vetting process and the claim process. Having an anonymous team alone doesn’t constitute an exit scam. As you say, it may be a flag, and it may change if Foresight was willing to cover it or not according to the vetting process, but if there has been no exit scam then there is no claimable event.
An exit scam takes many forms - hard exits such as rug pulling and soft exits such as fake presales followed by gradual token dump. If a user believed ABC has exit scammed, they submit a claim, and the DAO then has a duty to investigate. Evidence is found and submitted to the DAO unit such as transaction hx, Uniswap liquidity info, wallet analysis, social media info, news sites and more. Upon review of this info, each DAO member will vote as to whether they believe an exit scam has occurred or not.
It may sound subjective, but it’s the way jury’s work. Also bear in mind traditional insurance does a similar thing except it’s only a single person who makes the decision. If you made an insurance claim, would rather your outcome depend on one person’s judgment, or a group of 50 people reviewing the evidence? The latter - p2p Insurance - is the way of the future.