Post #31814

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.
[Sphereon BV] Niels Klomp
Hi Niels,

Thanks for submitting your candidacy. You gather a lot of skills and experience which makes your candidacy very appealing (even in absolute terms / not considering it is the only one :) )
Please find below some questions and comments. I have tried as much as possible to avoid any overlap with precedent questions from others.


[QUOTE="Niels Klomp, post: 31751, member: 8"]
I will seek roughly 7,500 dollars a month, denominated at a fixed FCT price determined upfront and with a discount applied. On top of that a bonus of 25%, with requirements/targets we have to define together. The reason is that I want to align incentives for the protocol and me/Sphereon. Although 7,500 dollars is a lot of money, obviously it doesn't pay my full salary. The money would be mainly used to fill in the gap by a senior developer as well as my salary in Sphereon which would be the result of work for the protocol and less availability in Sphereon. I am willing to take the risk in price to a certain extent of course. Even if the 7,500 dollars is hit in the FCT price I would not be making money compared to today. So I better make sure the price of FCT gets above the 35% discount gap mentioned below.

Having a strong incentive with the FCT token is very healthy IMO. I do think you can make money from that which is not a bad thing. It is actually a good thing for you and the protocol as a whole.
About capping the upside limitation (of 15k$/month): I would personally be more inclined not to cap it but to lock them for a period of time. This would be an additional strong incentive for the Director. This period of time could be the term of the Director mandate.
What do you think?

[QUOTE="Niels Klomp, post: 31751, member: 8"]
From a commercial perspective that still is a bad deal for Sphereon.

You actually mentioned several times that several managers/directors of Sphereon will help establish the strategic plan for Factom the protocol. Is it not because it is an opportunity for Sphereon ? What are their incentives, if not?
I personaly think this can be a massive opportunity for Sphereon to associate its name with a blockchain open source protocol in a very positive way. If successful, you would be de facto (sorry Anton ;)) the recognized expert of this protocol. Again this is a strong positive incentive for you and for all of us. Curious to hear your thoughts.


[QUOTE="Niels Klomp, post: 31752, member: 8"]
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.

This is very constructive and much needed. HashnStore team will be happy to collaborate with the next Factom protocol Director. HashnStore will support and contribute in all decisions to help further the protocol.

[QUOTE="Niels Klomp, post: 31752, member: 8"]
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.

This is critical and it is a fatal flaw we have experienced for too long. That along with the strategic plan should be enough to be a game changer for the protocol. It will avoid many of the infightings and enhance collaborations. We are aligned with this particularly on the specifications part that should be shared across the solutions. We will happy to adapt our Validity solution to such specs.

[QUOTE="WB, post: 31773, member: 175"]
Let me clarify where I'm coming from. The Director has a lot of overlap with the current grant system, but the scope is bigger. Instead of you being accountable for your own grants and its progress, you will be responsible for and coordinating the efforts of multiple parties, with far more resources.

So what I'm really asking is how we prevent past situations where the grants you represented suffered from communication issues and how you intend to rectify this in a Director role. It has very little to do with too many cooks in the kitchen. These same issues can plague a council-director relationship where either funds stop getting released or one side gets bullied into submission.

Here's one example:

[QUOTE="Niels Klomp, post: 31776, member: 8"]
Accountable being the operative word here. I think we have big difference in what personal accountability vs organizational accountability is. As director I would be directly accountable, meaning I will ensure that you have clear deliverables and contracts in paper.

An organization makes their own decisions and provides their own accountability. It is different roles. Something quite easily to get a grip on tbh.

Of course, I have to write about this post. I find that WB questions are legit just as the questions we were asking in the grant thread. You have different roles interacting with the protocol. At some point it could lead to similar situations in the future.
Moreover it is difficult to be satisfied by [I]An organization makes their own decisions and provides their own accountability. It is different roles. Something quite easily to get a grip on tbh.[/I]

If you have to be elected as the Director, I do think it is extremely important for you to avoid to communicate on behalf of BIF or Sphereon when it concerns the Factom protocol. Even just mentioning that you are acting on behalf of BIF or Sphereon instead of as Director would be too confusing and bad for the ecosystem. It mays just look as a communication or a wording issue from your point of view but it is much more than that and this impact should not be understimated. Otherwise, you may be in situations where you will have to criticize a party from the Factom perspective... and answer yourself on the other side from this party perspective. It would not make sense and it is hard too see how a difficult situation could be solved this way.
Do you agree with that?

Also what I retain from your last answers is that you will consider yourself accountable for specifying deliverables and framing contracts which is logical for a Director and is a good safeguard.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.