ANO Standing System Feedback and Questions

How ANOs and Candidates Can Update Their Country

1. Go to the Major Contributors ANO section here or via the "Governance" drop down menu at the top of this forum. If you're a Candidate, go to the Candidates section of the Governance drop down.

2. Click on the "Company Info" by your ANO or Candidate's name:

screenshot-factomize.com-2020.02.09-11_38_03.png


3. Select "Edit Information" at the top right.

screenshot-factomize.com-2020.02.09-11_38_18.png


4. Scroll to the very bottom and select the country where your ANO or Candidate is headquartered and this hit save.

screenshot-factomize.com-2020.02.09-11_38_44.png
 
Last edited:
A couple ideas for enhancements to the ANO Standing System I'd appreciate feedback on:

1. The ability to "vouch" for an ANO or Candidate. The idea is each Standing Party gets one "Vouch" per month. They don't have to use it and it has no power other than a front and center "Vouched for" under the ANO or Candidate's "Vote" button. This becomes a link that lasts 30 days and leads to the full text of why they are being vouched for. This allows those of us who are working with an ANO or Candidate in a manner where others may not understand their contributions to communicate why we feel so strongly about their team.

2. Delegation of votes. Delegation was originally envisioned in the Factom Protocol Governance Document. The reality is, not all ANOs or Candidates are going to have the time necessary to vote in an educated manner. We can allow those teams to delegate their votes to another ANO. If we want, this can come with an X% hit to their Standing.
 
I too like both of these ideas. I have experience of informal vouching as giver and recipient in this community and it has a lot of merit. As for delegation I think that a lot of ANOs are reliant on the insights and experience of others (for example Niels should take a bow with regard to his technical grasp) and so as long as we can find a way of making this work we should at least explore it further.
 
I support both of these. I hesitate about #2 a bit but think Matt's right that nothing stops people from doing it anyway and we want to provide people with less time for evaluating proposals to give more weight to people who have more time to do so.
 

Valentin Ganev

Factomatic
A couple ideas for enhancements to the ANO Standing System I'd appreciate feedback on:

1. The ability to "vouch" for an ANO or Candidate. The idea is each Standing Party gets one "Vouch" per month. They don't have to use it and it has no power other than a front and center "Vouched for" under the ANO or Candidate's "Vote" button. This becomes a link that lasts 30 days and leads to the full text of why they are being vouched for. This allows those of us who are working with an ANO or Candidate in a manner where others may not understand their contributions to communicate why we feel so strongly about their team.

2. Delegation of votes. Delegation was originally envisioned in the Factom Protocol Governance Document. The reality is, not all ANOs or Candidates are going to have the time necessary to vote in an educated manner. We can allow those teams to delegate their votes to another ANO. If we want, this can come with an X% hit to their Standing.
I would be OK with vouching, but only in it's limited form, as described above. Maybe even limiting it to 1 entity per voting period. We should be evaluating ANOs and candidates on objective measures and on publicly available information as much as possible and avoid relying on opinions of others.

I am strongly against the idea of vote delegation. We are still a small ecosystem, with less than 30 entities as operators. If people can't allocate half an hour per entity (so ~2 days per 3 months) to go through updates and form their opinion, then this is indicative of their commitment to the protocol. Anyone following Factomize & Discord intermittently would most likely have formed this opinion already, and shouldn't even need to dedicate a lot of time to this specifically.

Other Standing Parties should seriously consider if the ANOs that can't even take the time to provide feedback to their peers should be part of the ecosystem, if they can't fulfill their core responsibilities (participating in governance).

Last but no least, delegating votes is dangerous for a small system, as it can very quickly lead to serious centralisation & concentration of power. We already have a lot of centralised aspects in our governance, let's not introduce another one.
 
I would be OK with vouching, but only in it's limited form, as described above. Maybe even limiting it to 1 entity per voting period. We should be evaluating ANOs and candidates on objective measures and on publicly available information as much as possible and avoid relying on opinions of others.

I am strongly against the idea of vote delegation. We are still a small ecosystem, with less than 30 entities as operators. If people can't allocate half an hour per entity (so ~2 days per 3 months) to go through updates and form their opinion, then this is indicative of their commitment to the protocol. Anyone following Factomize & Discord intermittently would most likely have formed this opinion already, and shouldn't even need to dedicate a lot of time to this specifically.

Other Standing Parties should seriously consider if the ANOs that can't even take the time to provide feedback to their peers should be part of the ecosystem, if they can't fulfill their core responsibilities (participating in governance).

Last but no least, delegating votes is dangerous for a small system, as it can very quickly lead to serious centralisation & concentration of power. We already have a lot of centralised aspects in our governance, let's not introduce another one.
Hi Valentin,

Thank you for your customarily thorough assessment of these options. Whilst I think vouching has its place I think you make a very good point about making it straightforward to get good objective data about ANO performance and contribution. This is something which was raised and supported when the prospect of standing was introduced. Since then a number of members of the community have been working on potential measures and should surface with a proposal on Factomize soon.

I hope that improved availability of objective data would also lessen the need for delegating votes, although under certain circumstance this may be valuable provided it does not lead to centralization of any kind.
 

Valentin Ganev

Factomatic
Hi Valentin,

Thank you for your customarily thorough assessment of these options. Whilst I think vouching has its place I think you make a very good point about making it straightforward to get good objective data about ANO performance and contribution. This is something which was raised and supported when the prospect of standing was introduced. Since then a number of members of the community have been working on potential measures and should surface with a proposal on Factomize soon.

I hope that improved availability of objective data would also lessen the need for delegating votes, although under certain circumstance this may be valuable provided it does not lead to centralization of any kind.
Thanks for your reply, Mike.

I agree that in some cases voting delegation could make sense. It would also make much more sense if we expand the Standing Parties by allowing token holders to participate in governance as well. I would have considerably less issues with delegation, if that were the case.

I was unaware of the ongoing effort for collecting objective data. That's much needed and we have been pondering about providing a service that collects and summarises such data ourselves. In particular, starting with on-chain metrics: how many FCTs have ANOs received, what is the $ tax base of those FCTs, what is their average efficiency since onboarding, what is the amount of tokens they have contributed towards the grant pool, how many tokens are currently in possession of ANOs (this could also be reliably estimated from on-chain data under some mild assumptions), what is the up-time of an ANOs servers. The good thing about these data points is that they are almost indisputable. Then we have other metrics, which would need a more manual collection, such as: participation in governance votes, number of grants submitted, number of grants completed (how many were successful, how many unsuccessful, how many were/are late), etc.

I don't want to derail the conversation with these too much, but I believe having the above would be a major addition and improvement to the ANO Standing system that is now live.
 
Last edited:
I think that vouching would be a useful addition.

However, I would tend to agree that delegation of votes would likely increase centrilzation and be used as a justification for absentee ANOs.

(Although I must admit, the idea of not spending as much time on Discord and Factomize doesnt sound like such a bad thing 🙃)
 
1) I am not sure to like the vouching idea for 2 reasons: you can already provide explicit support through a post in the contribution section. A bit less visible I guess but at least it can be justified with an explanation. Which is the second reason why I don't like it so much. We want more transparency from each ANO. And this is not going in this direction.

2) I agree that in our current situation any ANO should be able to vote independently. But on the long term it would be needed. Depending on the technical implementation such a delegation system could be generalized to token holders (if/when at some point we include that). So yes but mid/long term target and possibly along with token holder vote implementation.

3) The grid proposed by Matt is a great UX improvement.

4) I have been thinking of the same objective metrics as the ones proposed by Valentin (and certainly Mike and some others) when scoring ANOs. It would be quite useful in our new standing system.
 
@David Chapman @Fillip H.
SUGGESTION: Filters improvement for Votes.
I can not see all votes made by specific party (e.g. Votes by The Factoid Authority), I can filter events only by user (as shown on the screenshot).

Would be cool to have 2 filters: Votes by Group (no filter right now) / Votes for Group (currently it's named "Group" in UI.

1581517041808.png
 
On the subject of objective performance criteria, we have created a proposal in an attempt to tackle that issue. I welcome as much feedback as possible.

Thread can be seen here: https://factomize.com/forums/thread...mance-metrics-and-efficiency-guidelines.3304/
I said " Since then a number of members of the community have been working on potential measures and should surface with a proposal on Factomize soon." So now you know what was "in the pipes":). I encourage everyone to go read this and give us your responses.
 
@David Chapman can we please have ability to filter on ANO in Q+A section?

will like to be able to see all questions for specific ANO by adding filter.

thank you for considering.
You can already filter by ANO in the “Filters” drop-down. The link list is not the only set of filters, it is merely quick links to commonly used filters.

@David Chapman @Fillip H.
SUGGESTION: Filters improvement for Votes.
I can not see all votes made by specific party (e.g. Votes by The Factoid Authority), I can filter events only by user (as shown on the screenshot).

Would be cool to have 2 filters: Votes by Group (no filter right now) / Votes for Group (currently it's named "Group" in UI.

View attachment 2530
This is difficult to implement since
a) the filter pop up is shared among all pages to reduce code duplication
b) not every vote has a source ANO

That being said, it may be possible to add a second drop down for “source” and rename “group” to something generic that works on every page. Something like “Source ANO” and “Recipient ANO”.
 
Top