2021-1 Factom Protocol Director Election

[WB]

Voting rules:

• There is one open Director position.
• ANOs may only vote for one candidate.
• Once submitted you cannot change your vote(s)
• The candidate with the most votes will be the winner.
• The 50.1% quorum is applicable for the outcome to be valid.
• The vote runs for three days and ends at 2021-02-20 23:59 UTC

 

[PaulSnow]

What exactly happens if @Niels Klomp is not approved?

 

[Nate Miller]

We've got a quorum and a definite majority for Niels, I believe he's already won

 

[WB]

What exactly happens if @Niels Klomp is not approved?

The position would stay vacant and we'd start a new election if we were confident there'd be suitable candidates.

 

[PaulSnow]

We've got a quorum and a definite majority for Niels, I believe he's already won

That's what I'd expect, sort of. It does imply quite a bit of back channel coordination to say that this election process is just a formality. Or maybe a quorum voted him in, and can see the results. I haven't voted, so I don't know.

I'd hope @Niels Klomp would still be obligated to do at least a bit of campaigning to be elected. Particularly interesting to me would be how he intends to handle funds, avoid making Factom an SEC target, how he is going to set protocol priorities, how we are going to avoid possible regulatory issues with the use of funds he will be distributing.

Basically a summery of all the past discussions plus more details about what to expect from him over the short term and long term.

 

[Alex]

I'd hope @Niels Klomp would still be obligated to do at least a bit of campaigning to be elected.

We held a Q&A https://forum.factomprotocol.org/threads/sphereon-bv-niels-klomp.5666/

Or maybe a quorum voted him in, and can see the results. I haven't voted, so I don't know.

Yes, the results are visible to those who have voted.

 

[PaulSnow]

Fair enough.

I think a Director could work, but I think running the protocol as @Niels Klomp suggests isn't very workable. Questions about Liability, regulation, grants, vision, developer recruitment/retention, taxes, etc. remain.

 

[Miguel Proulx]

Questions about Liability, regulation, grants, vision, developer recruitment/retention, taxes, etc. remain.

Why did you get into the cryptocurrency business if you are this risk adverse in the first place ? I applaud Niels for putting its neck out there, we need a leader willing to take calculated risk. It seems you have been overly anxious about the SEC/regulations issues as you keep coming back with these type of comments over the years.

 

[PaulSnow]

Why did you get into the cryptocurrency business if you are this risk adverse in the first place ? I applaud Niels for putting its neck out there, we need a leader willing to take calculated risk. It seems you have been overly anxious about the SEC/regulations issues as you keep coming back with these type of comments over the years.

I applaud Niels as well. We will see how this goes.

 

[Hinamatsuri]

Fair enough.

I think a Director could work, but I think running the protocol as @Niels Klomp suggests isn't very workable. Questions about Liability, regulation, grants, vision, developer recruitment/retention, taxes, etc. remain.

What in Niels’ approach is it you think is not really workable?

 

[Niels Klomp]

Fair enough.

I think a Director could work, but I think running the protocol as @Niels Klomp suggests isn't very workable. Questions about Liability, regulation, grants, vision, developer recruitment/retention, taxes, etc. remain.

Interesting @PaulSnow , you mention vision, developer recruitment/retention, grants etc, whilst I have been saying that these parts need actual structural analysis instead of what we have been doing. "Let's put out a roadmap, Let's do tokenomics". I am saying we need to have a proper starting point and do things in the correct order. Then you explicitly mention these in your arguments.

Also you are rather strong in that it isn't very workable. I am telling you I will make it work. It is just not what you would have hoped for probably. Those are different things.

 

[WB]

I agree we've been glossing over things like liability and regulation too quickly, so let's not start dismissing these just because we don't like the rest of the message. I'd welcome some legal advice once certain roles are in place, if only to help protect those who're actually stepping forward and taking the risk.

 

[Niels Klomp]

Nobody is glossing over them in here IMO. The issue is that we have been discussing about this within the community for over one or maybe even two months. Everyone has been up to date on what was going on. Yet the inventor of the protocol comes in last minute, after everything is already set in motion and then starts opening and questioning the discussion. Optics wise that simply is not the most wise choice.

Of course you want to take into account what is mentioned, that is why you follow a process in the first place

 

[PaulSnow]

Interesting @PaulSnow , you mention vision, developer recruitment/retention, grants etc, whilst I have been saying that these parts need actual structural analysis instead of what we have been doing. "Let's put out a roadmap, Let's do tokenomics". I am saying we need to have a proper starting point and do things in the correct order. Then you explicitly mention these in your arguments.

Also you are rather strong in that it isn't very workable. I am telling you I will make it work. It is just not what you would have hoped for probably. Those are different things.

I have never said "it isn't very workable". I am certainly not "rather strong" in such a position.

I will note that you have already taken a step down the path where you will direct the tokens from the protocol in the direction that your analysis indicates is the best path. That is workable in theory, certainly.

All I am hoping for is a strong protocol that makes a difference in the world. If you feel the protocol might not serve my interests or the interests of Inc's potential partners and customers, that would be very disappointing certainly. But as general as those interests are, I doubt the protocol could be successful AND not serve the interests of data centric applications.

 

[Niels Klomp]

You seem to imply I would be making all kinds of protocol changing decisions by myself that is certainly not the case. It is not even part of the mandate. Btw you literally mentioned the not workable part with regards to my approach

What I will be doing however is determining who to include when in discussions in the road towards presenting what needs to happen. Is a rather logical consequence your input will be taken into account on several occasions. Hence why we also have a meeting next week and will have a meeting with Inveniam shortly thereafter with you or Jay present, even before my term would start.

The ANOs will be the ones making the protocol changing decisions, but they will do so based on my advices, which in turn is formed based on a process, which has seen input from all kinds of stakeholders. I am confident together we are able to change the protocol around to be inviting to external developers and new parties, to retain developers an to become interesting for new tokenholders.

We do have to start by looking very critically at ourselves, which isn't always fun of course.

 

[PaulSnow]

You seem to imply I would be making all kinds of protocol changing decisions by myself that is certainly not the case. It is not even part of the mandate. Btw you literally mentioned the not workable part with regards to my approach

Yeah you are right. In my head I was not thinking the general approach, but about the comments you made in the Q&A about how to approach protocol development. I believe we have real problems with developer retention and recruiting. Do I think you can retain developers (we are really down to @luap with an (0%) efficiency grant and me as an unpaid volunteer (%66 efficiency).

Will we retain developers and attract new developers into Factom by increasing the formal structures and oversight? Those suggestions I don't think are workable.

In general you as a developer can be workable, so I do apologize for my misstatement. Some of your suggestions will need a bit of polish and adjustment I think, but isn't that always so?

What I will be doing however is determining who to include when in discussions in the road towards presenting what needs to happen. Is a rather logical consequence your input will be taken into account on several occasions. Hence why we also have a meeting next week and will have a meeting with Inveniam shortly thereafter with you or Jay present, even before my term would start.

As I said in the grant, I was able to get Inveniam to commit outside their process. I don't know when we can arrange a meeting with you, as I can assure you the next month is very busy for them.

The ANOs will be the ones making the protocol changing decisions, but they will do so based on my advices, which in turn is formed based on a process, which has seen input from all kinds of stakeholders. I am confident together we are able to change the protocol around to be inviting to external developers and new parties, to retain developers an to become interesting for new tokenholders.

We do have to start by looking very critically at ourselves, which isn't always fun of course.

As I said, we will see how it goes. It would seem most ANOs do have a great deal of hope that your advice will be good. I certainly hope it will be as well.

 

[Niels Klomp]

As I said in the grant, I was able to get Inveniam to commit outside their process. I don't know when we can arrange a meeting with you, as I can assure you the next month is very busy for them.

Our meeting is next Tuesday so we can discuss when to meet with Inveniam then. Doesn't have to be next month.