The signature from the blockchain entry has been verified against an identity on this server.
[Sphereon BV] Niels Klomp
[QUOTE="Matthias Fortin, post: 31814, member: 227"]
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.
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?
I am more than happy to lock a partial amount without cap. On the other hand who is going to pay my bills? Keep in mind that Sphereon has to fill my gap as I will be lowering my hours during this position. It is not that Sphereon can miss me without taking measures ;)
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?
For Sphereon it is quite clear. Although we are pretty agnostic blockchain wise, we still very much like the data approach and stable price per anchor very much, as it fits all our products and thus business model very well. We would be very happy if Sphereon could talk confidently about the protocol again. Right now it doesn't. The next incentive is that obviously Sphereon would benefit from the protocol as one of the entities involved if (and that still is an if to be clear) the protocol would make a comeback in the crypto/DLT space.
[quote]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.
Agree that ties into the second part of the above answer. I do have to be honest. The Sphereon brand in the VC/SSI world is already becoming pretty strong, just like we are well known in the Dutch blockchain space. If the protocol picks up again, for which I will do all that I can, it certainly won't hurt Sphereon of course. That is also the reason why I am not putting in full commercial rates for an interim position.
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.
Good to hear!. I have had people reaching out that for the first time in a long time they feel confident again in the protocol moving forward. I think getting the bal rolling again, seeing actual change and not trying to do everything through a forum, but more with actual conversations and discussions helps tremendously in getting the momentum going again. It is the eleventh hour, but that means it is not too late.
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.
Cool, good to hear. That is what I would love to see. Because if we can come up with specifications and enhancements it means that we will see common problems emerging you, Sphereon, Off-Blocks, DeFacto, Kompendium and all others that are actually using the protocol and/or are building products on top of have. It also means we can address those and even make sure we get a proper solution in place, because if current entities have these problems then it is highly unlikely they are alone.
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?
First of all I also believe that WB questions are legit of course. I am also pragmatic about it. With current ANOs in the system getting compensation by the protocol, with the grant system in place and with parties working together, we get in all kinds of similar situations.
I could opt to not communicate on behalf of BIF or Sphereon, but then let me ask this question in return. Do you want me to leverage my network on behalf of the protocol at a remuneration way below interim management?
What I am trying to say is that it goes both ways. Filling in the blanks you probably expect me to "market" the protocol wherever and with whomever I am in the room even to Sphereon/BIF relations, but on the other hand I would not be allowed to talk on behalf of BIF/Sphereon here? As said I will probably limit that amount of communications and would always make clear if something would be on their behalf, but it would be a bit autistic for lack of a better word to describe it, if I would always have to talk on behalf of the protocol, whilst reality is that I do have these affiliations. I rather have people knowing about it tbh.
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.
Yes obviously. If we want to make this a success it means we need to make decisions that parties involved agree with and to which they can be accountable. As a result every agreement made also means I am accountable. Maybe not directly for its success, but I will certainly do everything in my power to ensure agreements are made with the protocol in mind first and that when those agreements aren't upheld or might go sideways to either limit the damage or get it back on track.