Post #31391

Signature verified

The signature from the blockchain entry has been verified against an identity on this server.

The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Batched Amendment - Strategy and Resource Director Proposal
[I]Decided to create a summary later. This is a tad long, but there is enough to talk about. Obviously I left out certain parts, as it would become a book.[/I]

First of all I would reach out to all ANOs and interested parties (also non ANOs and ex ANOs that we know off) and have short individual meetings with the parties that are willing to cooperate/meet. This is to both explain what I will be doing in the short and medium term, but more importantly to get input from those parties and to see what they really want, and what they can provide in terms of resources, products and/or clients for the protocol. I will create a high level report out of that anonymizing and/or omitting any details where necessary and obviously approved by these parties.

What I would do in parallel is to hash out the [B]strategy[/B] for the protocol together with Maarten and our COO, that you all don’t know who is also called Maarten. He has been COO/CIO for a top 100 company in the Netherlands for the last 8 years, where he was responsible in his group for several hundreds of millions in turnover, with over a billion for the entire company every year (for [USER=175]@WB[/USER] : Anwb reizen). He holds a Cum Laude MBA Master from Nyenrode Business University with a thesis in Blockchain and its adoption in the Netherlands, so I guess he is qualified for the job 😉

This would result in an internal and external analysis, a SWOT matrix, together with confrontation matrix, a Product Portfolio Analysis (where it makes sense and based on the input from the ANO meetings, probably using a BCG Matrix and/or Osterwalder Value Proposition model). This will result in a Business Model Canvas for the protocol, which basically is the single [B]piece of “paper”[/B] we can use to validate almost [B]every important future decision[/B] against. This process takes roughly 4 weeks, with first results in 2 weeks. Obviously the outcome will be shared with ANOs and the wider community, during which feedback will be incorporated

Then we would determine what is missing [B]to create the most amount of value in the shortest amount of time[/B], whilst at the same time seeing where we as a protocol can [B]align interests in terms of product and resources[/B]. This would also mean that a party like Sphereon would align their strategic direction to an extent with the protocol, bringing some existing products and/or ideas to the protocol (open-source). [B][U]One thing is for sure. There would be at least one highly visible 2nd layer application of the protocol (blockchain for good makes sense) in there for which the protocol would become known/famous[/U][/B] and for which we know we can execute because the tech to make that work is roughly there and together with all stakeholders (that is ANOs, (external) developers, community members, universities we are in contact with, partners and relationships). I get people would be afraid that it becomes a Sphereon show. It simply will not, because we would definitely invest in the protocol going down this route, doing all out in the open and we value any and all party that would like to help in execution in whatever form. It would also not make sense to do anything remotely like that. [B]ANOs are in charge at the end of the day[/B], very much like a board.

From the analysis [B]outcome[/B] you will get vision, strategy and plans to [B]execute[/B]. The latter includes the roadmap and, financial, marketing and resource plans, hence why I have constantly said we are doing things in the wrong order. It would include a tokenomics proposal that is in line with the vision and strategy and provides (crypto)investors enough body and confidence it will become a success. It would also include feedback cycles to incentivize both adoption and interest in the token and that limits the inflation. Good ideas from [B]current proposal[/B] will obviously be [B]brought into that proposal[/B]. It would also contain a rebrand proposal that is in line with the direction we set out. The above, together with the Rosetta work and the ETH wrapped tokens allows us an [B]easier entry into Exchanges and (re)start discussions with them[/B]. Timeline for this phase is roughly 2 months.

The plans would include a change to our current grant system. Bringing the system in line with [B]what serves the protocol best[/B], holding the plans against the strategy, vision and roadmap. [B]Anybody[/B] can subscribe to and help with the execution. Probably we will want a system in place where we all leave a certain percentage open for novel projects and/or startups a bit similar to what we have now, but the biggest chunk will be protocols and specifications first for all interested parties to work on. The important part of the system is, that the parties, existing and new, that are willing to put in work (development, marketing, outreach, governance) will find a place in the system.

Maybe a big elephant in the room, but in all of these plans there will also be the future role of ANOs, our inflation and current average efficiency of 30%. Although not the direct mandate of the proposed role, it simply is not something you can ignore in the overall strategy for the future of the protocol. It ties in too many aspects not to address it (inflation, value for money, primary role, infighting, execution).

With the resources becoming available and the inversion of the grantpool towards [B]common goals[/B], we will see [B]more collaboration[/B] (very much like the Sphereon business model btw) with known people/parties, but also with new parties. This phase will take 6 months, during which also the sourcing of people will happen.
Although maybe too early to discuss as we need feedback from all of the above, I do want to mention that this phase in my plans would also form the start of the formation of a non-profit foundation, to hold/manage part of the tokens that would become available, and to give the protocol a proper entity and leadership structure. This is where something resembling the council approach can be formed, with the exception that it has a leader/director. Not something in the middle from what I read with the council approach.

Obviously the Director is not doing everything all by him/herself. It doesn’t make sense to do everything as one person. It will be a combination of rallying the troops, using resources and relationships that are already available as well as getting new people/parties on board. Getting something of the ground needs a bit of luck, but more importantly it needs a vision, strategy, alignment, persistence, resources and leadership. In order to achieve that we basically start at the opposite end of what we have now and move to something in the middle. Something that is proven and maximizes our chances of success. But at all times with [B]ANOs having the eventual say[/B], just not in every single decision. I would be accountable to ANOs and would seek the go ahead and approval where needed, but certainly not on every small matter. Simply like a board I would be accountable, provide updates and ANOs could sent me home at any time. I am confident that I can turn the protocol around in 2021 [B]together with the help of all that are willing[/B].
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.