Amendment Batched Amendment – New Committee Framework

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed BlockVenture Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockchain Innovation Foundation Consensus Networks Consensus Networks Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow De Facto De Facto Factom Inc Factom Inc Factomatic Factomatic Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashnStore HashnStore Jason Gregoire Kompendium Kompendium Luciap Luciap PrestigeIT PrestigeIT Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed CryptoLogic CryptoLogic HashQuark

Should the document be ratified or amended as specified by the thread type?


All votes are in

  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Factom Community,

I am pleased to submit this document ratification-amendment discussion on behalf of @WB and the Governance Implementation Group.

This batched amendment introduces two updated documents. Both have already been released publicly and although there has been no feedback, we believe the majority are aware of the contents. This post will try to keep to the salient point.


The two documents effectively introduce the new committee framework. What that framework enables is the following:
1. Better stakeholder management
a. Doc 001 has been redesigned to be more inclusive as a proper introduction to Factom governance.​
b. Adds a community secretary for information sharing.​
c. Wider stakeholder involvement. Committee membership is open without technical requirements, allowing participation in representative decision-making through the introduction of a Steering Council that follows standing committee recommendations.​
d. This resonates very well with the upcoming W&M research that examines Factom’s stakeholder management through agency theory.​

2. Better decisiveness

The Steering Council represents the breadth of committee opinions with a single vote. This is VERY strong for cohesion, rather than committees each voting separately and differently; which would only shift our current issues (conflict).​

3. Stronger committees

The involvement of committees in decision-making not only adds incentive, it allows for stronger mandates. By now, the need for dedicated, strong committees is more evident than ever. Governance participation is generally very low, so a mandated governance committee (for minor edits / QOL improvements), for example, has never made more sense. It also paves the way for better defined ANO expectations.​

4. Current committees can continue

They’ll be ad-hoc committees under this new Doc 006. They won’t have council representation and will need to seek oversight by a Standing Committee. What this does is enable a transitional phase, which is important for e.g. the Website Committee as it still has dedicated documentation.​


This framework is based on the GWG proposal, but has changed in a number of ways based on all the discussion we’ve had.
Most notably:

1. There are only three Standing Committees: Governance, Outreach and Technology. No more Diagnostics.​
2. Executive Committee renamed into Steering Council​
3. Council representatives aren’t installed and removed at will by the committee, but are nominated and need confirmation by Standing Parties. They’re also not elected as Officers, because an election implies a real choice. A Standing Committee only nominates one person for one seat. There would be no opponents.​
4. Standing Committees need to maintain an ACTIVE charter for Council representation. This keeps the Council from being unchecked and representing dead committees.​
5. This framework adds NO specific workload for Standing Committees. It suggests compliance with other docs (standing system, grant system) but those docs are still unchanged.​
6. The Steering Council has a 32% vote, the Authority Set is capped at 68%; distributed pro rata by the number of ANOs. The Steering Council casts a single vote (multi-sig when eventually voting on-chain). This model is one of the reasons we designed and implemented the new Doc 002 as it balances this power more fairly.​
7. Standing votes by the council strictly need a standing-party-approved scoresheet. This offsets concerns about ‘randomly booting ANOs’.​

NOTE: All listed document amendments are subject to a single vote in this Timed Discussion thread.

Please take the time to review the amended documents in full prior to the ratification vote. Thank you
 
Last edited:

Chappie

Factomize Bot
This thread is a Document Ratification/Amendment Timed Discussion and I am designed to help facilitate efficient communication.

ANOs may take part in this discussion and vote. Unless this discussion is ended early or extended, it will end in 8 days after which a vote will take place. After 18 hours from the start of the thread or any point up until 24 hours are left in the discussion, you can make a motion to end the discussion immediately or extend the discussion beyond it's initial time frame by selecting the pertinent button at the top of this thread. If someone "seconds" your motion, a poll will take place which requires a majority of Standing Parties to vote one way or the other.

At the end of the discussion period, ANOs vote and if 60% vote yes, the document is successfully ratified or amended.
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
We are now 18 hours into the discussion. You may now make a motion to extend this Document Ratification/Amendment Discussion by an additional 72 hours or end this conversation by selecting the pertinent button at the top of this thread. This option will end when there are 24 hours left in the discussion.
 
Happy to hear thoughts.

For Doc 001, I'd like people to check out the definitions and provide improvements as they see fit. They're mostly intact from the existing Doc 001, but the whole notion of support categories and how it ties into node identities gets a bit confusing at times and we want this to make sense to any outsider.

This framework has been my focus for a while and it very easily locks into other concurrent work. Roadmap planning and execution, creating structured entities for any kind of endowments associated with new tokenomics, it's all there.

Finally, because the 'usefulness' of committees tends to come up at times, it's worth mentioning that blockchain is filled with committee systems. I can show you Ethereum/EEA, Polkadot, Zcash, Baseline - even Helium is taking its first committee steps (because we like using them as an example). Some will do better with loosely organized committees because they are more rooted in volunteerism, others set it up purely for resource management and token stewardship.

This framework was drafted independently (and earlier in some cases) from these examples, but the many similarities are testimony to this being common sense. Organizing into strong committees and steering groups seems to be the logical conclusion for any decentralized group, including for early Factom. They just weren't strong enough and the structure didn't complement the ANO profile.
 
They’re also not elected as Officers, because an election implies a real choice
In that case, perhaps 5.2 should be titled "Nominating the Steering Council" or "Appointing the Steering Council"?

A term of 12 months is long for steering council members, particularly given our experience with Guides. Even though an ejection procedure has been defined, it can often be difficult to overcome inertia in this community. We have had standing parties remain in place far beyond any rightful term - both ANOs and Guides - and I believe that habit is unlikely to change with the introduction of this new framework. A 12 month term is asking for trouble.

I'd rather have a shorter period that can be extended every 3 to 6 months with a vote. That will bring issues to the fore earlier and will allow standing parties to withdraw support from a council member without actively starting a fight.
 
GENERAL QUESTIONS FOR EVERYONE

1. Committees: Only a handful of ANOs currently participate in committees or Working Groups. I don't understand why we think this will change. Which ANOs are willing to state that, with these changes, they will start to contribute more hours to Committee work?

2. Steering Council: When we had Guides, we only had 1 person show interest in being a Guide for the next Guide election round before we shut things down. Do we have enough people interested in being on the Steering Council? Who's interested?

Thanks
 
I'd like to second @Matt Osborne's questions. I would like to hear from the people who intend to volunteer their time for these committees and the steering council. If possible, I would also like to know how much time they plan to commit. The 0.5 FTE for the steering council is a big ask given current levels of engagement.
 
STEERING COUNCIL PAY:
Should we also assume this is a paid job? Somewhere around 4,000 FCT a month. So, 4000 FCT * 3 months * 3 members = 36,000 FCT per grant round. That would mean about 30% of the grant round is going to Steering Council members.

I'm not sure that's feasible given our current situation. It's certainly not feasible when considering everything on the proposed roadmap.

Between the roadmap, tokenomics suggestions, steering council pay, etc. I am still having a really hard time seeing how all the math works (i.e., budgeting and projections). The math seems to be getting ignored.
 
GENERAL QUESTIONS FOR EVERYONE

1. Committees: Only a handful of ANOs currently participate in committees or Working Groups. I don't understand why we think this will change. Which ANOs are willing to state that, with these changes, they will start to contribute more hours to Committee work?

2. Steering Council: When we had Guides, we only had 1 person show interest in being a Guide for the next Guide election round before we shut things down. Do we have enough people interested in being on the Steering Council? Who's interested?

Thanks
I have an interest in several roles here.

1. Outreach Committee
2. Steering Council
3. Secretary

@TroyWiipongwii would gladly serve on the Governance Committee to further align Factom with MaxCollab and the efforts at William & Mary.

I'm willing to bet there are other non-ANOs that would serve on committees, which is a good thing. And since the committees (which nominate the Steering Council members) will be determining the funding priorities for grant rounds it provides an outlet for non-ANOs to have a meaningful say and behooves ANOs to participate.

Can't speak to the math. Hadn't assumed the Steering Council would be paid. That's interesting.

Why would it deserve 4000FCT per member per month? Is this an ideal project to pilot denominating grants in USD or EURO?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WB
Only a handful of ANOs currently participate in committees or Working Groups. I don't understand why we think this will change. Which ANOs are willing to state that, with these changes, they will start to contribute more hours to Committee work?
Ironically you've proven a big point in that you assume participation in the committees or even the SC is limited to ANOs (I'm not an ANO either).

Factom has failed at stakeholder management, and one aspect in particular. Inclusivity. With more stakeholders feeling included in a project, there should in time be a bigger influx of talent. This is essentially what the framework is addressing. I tried my best to set this out very clearly in Doc 001, so I almost hope you haven't read the document, as otherwise it needs editing.

I'll repeat how this proposal helps:

1. Secretary role
2. Committee membership is open without technical requirements, allowing easy participation in representative decision-making.
3. Stronger committees to help promote other systems (grants) and achieve relevant stakeholder objectives in the roadmap.

As for the influx of non-ANO talent, should ANOs help drive it? Definitely.

For example, I've stated that I will happily establish a Governance Committee, and recruit what I believe to be beneficial talent. I can't speak for Outreach and I can't speak for Technical, but I'd like to assume similar efforts and I'll help where I can.

Should we also assume this is a paid job? Somewhere around 4,000 FCT a month. So, 4000 FCT * 3 months * 3 members = 36,000 FCT per grant round. That would mean about 30% of the grant round is going to Steering Council members.
In my opinion, for any serious position, you need to 1. ensure they have time to give, but also enable them to spend that time meaningfully (that's why I don't want 3-month terms) and 2. have some kind of reward, where FCT is the most straight-forward.

If it's a big problem, the majority can just start a motion to stop compensation. I wouldn't fight it much.
 
I'd be okay with six months. Three months is a bit short and will be a detriment to longer-term commitments.
Six months is okay with me, though I would like to keep that under review. Perhaps we can trial it for, say, 12 months to see whether or not it works.

I'd also like to say that I appreciate the provision that bars a person from becoming a member of more than 1 committee. I think that is important to decentralise power within the protocol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WB
Six months is okay with me, though I would like to keep that under review. Perhaps we can trial it for, say, 12 months to see whether or not it works.

I'd also like to say that I appreciate the provision that bars a person from becoming a member of more than 1 committee. I think that is important to decentralise power within the protocol.
I'd rather go the other way and trial it for 6 months first. If the members over-delivering then consider extending to 12. If they're doing fine then just re-approve their seats. We don't want another Guide scenario where we're stuck paying for an unperformed role we can't rescind for 12 months. Especially not the next 12 months. They're too important.
 
I'd rather go the other way and trial it for 6 months first. If the members over-delivering then consider extending to 12. If they're doing fine then just re-approve their seats. We don't want another Guide scenario where we're stuck paying for an unperformed role we can't rescind for 12 months. Especially not the next 12 months. They're too important.
I broadly agree. I actually meant that we should trial 6 month terms for the next 12 months then review how those have performed to see whether we need to adjust term length. Apologies for the confusion. We can trial 6 months for only 1 term. That's okay too.
 
@WB You realize non-ANOs can participate in Committees and Working Groups right now, right? I would hope so, considering you and I are both in the Exchange Working Group. Factom has been doing Committees for three years. Your new approach is also "Committee" based, yet you are expecting a different result. This is not sound logic.
I'll try once more and keep it very simple.

So, considering that:

1. Stakeholder engagement determines the level of inclusivity.
2. Inclusivity drives feelings of involvement and ownership.
2. Factom has had poor stakeholder engagement for three years.

We would find that:

3. Factom has low inclusivity and low involvement.

I'll wager that's an important reason we don't really see any non-ANOs in our current committees or applying for grants. I'm a pretty obvious exception. Low ANO involvement is a different beast we shouldn't get into here.

You asked what ANOs will fill these committees. It's the wrong perspective. I made it clear that we're improving our stakeholder engagement, which will help the influx of new talent so long as ANOs are sympathetic towards those efforts. I've given you a personal example, Damo provided another.

If you're worried that ANOs won't step up, then that's the perfect reason to be voting for this. Because we'll enable participation in decision-making by other stakeholder groups.
 
I'd also like to say that I appreciate the provision that bars a person from becoming a member of more than 1 committee. I think that is important to decentralise power within the protocol.
Not everyone is going to like it, but yes it's important for that reason.

Also agree with trialing. That's true for everything really. Terms, compensation, FTE requirements, you name it.
 
Last edited:
I'll try once more and keep it very simple.

So, considering that:

1. Stakeholder engagement determines the level of inclusivity.
2. Inclusivity drives feelings of involvement and ownership.
2. Factom has had poor stakeholder engagement for three years.
I'll wager that's an important reason we don't really see any non-ANOs in our current committees or applying for grants. I'm a pretty obvious exception. Low ANO involvement is a different beast we shouldn't get into here.
Outside involvement will not change because Factom is not a desirable project to work on. That's the truth, whether we like it or not. Heck, Factom isn't even a desirable project to speculate on, just look at FCT price over the last 45 days. FCT is down around 30% while most other projects are way higher. "Inclusivity" is not the issue and thinking people are going to devote their time to Factom is a pipe dream considering we have three years of data showing an enormous lack of interest.

1. Outsiders have been able to apply to be ANOs for a while now? How many have applied?
2. Outsiders could have applied to be Guides, especially because we only had 1 person express interest in being a Guide previously. How many outsiders applied then?
3. Outsiders could always submit grants. How many actually did?
4. Outsiders could join committees and working groups. How many actually did?

The data does not support your claims.

You asked what ANOs will fill these committees. It's the wrong perspective. I made it clear that we're improving our stakeholder engagement, which will help the influx of new talent so long as ANOs are sympathetic towards those efforts. I've given you a personal example, Damo provided another.
1. Are you expecting that these outsiders are going to work for free or will they be compensated?
2. If compensated, where does the money (FCT) come from?
 
Outside involvement will not change because Factom is not a desirable project to work on. That's the truth, whether we like it or not. Heck, Factom isn't even a desirable project to speculate on, just look at FCT price over the last 45 days. FCT is down around 30% while most other projects are way higher. "Inclusivity" is not the issue and thinking people are going to devote their time to Factom is a pipe dream considering we have three years of data showing an enormous lack of interest.

1. Outsiders have been able to apply to be ANOs for a while now? How many have applied?
2. Outsiders could have applied to be Guides, especially because we only had 1 person express interest in being a Guide previously. How many outsiders applied then?
3. Outsiders could always submit grants. How many actually did?
4. Outsiders could join committees and working groups. How many actually did?

The data does not support your claims.


1. Are you expecting that these outsiders are going to work for free or will they be compensated?
2. If compensated, where does the money (FCT) come from?
Governance itself will not make Factom compelling to work on, but improving our governance structures and process will at least make it less uncompelling.

IMO what is going to make Factom more compelling to work on is more tools, libraries, documentation, and reference applications plus solid outreach to developer communities while sorting out governance and tokenomics.
 
"Inclusivity" is not the issue and thinking people are going to devote their time to Factom is a pipe dream considering we have three years of data showing an enormous lack of interest.
Very much an issue. The first thing you said was:

Only a handful of ANOs currently participate in committees or Working Groups. I don't understand why we think this will change. Which ANOs are willing to state that, with these changes, they will start to contribute more hours to Committee work?
That's why I called it ironic if you then deny that inclusivity is the problem. The ANO system is non-inclusive by design, it doesn't create a strong enough incentive to 'share the spoils'. That design has conditioned you (and the Authority Set as a whole) to think like this. I like to think we're breaking free from it, as there's increasing support for the people trying to change things around, but discussions like these leave me in doubt.

As for your questions, they all point to the above, but I'll entertain the grant question.

Out of the 189 grant proposals, 9 of them were non-ANOs (I'm counting Who's grants, imagine that). I looked that up a long time ago. You dismiss it by claiming the protocol was never desirable enough to attract people. Surely the protocol was more desirable to work on back in 2018? When money wasn't an issue (millions of USD in funding), conflict was low and the sky was the limit. Yet we saw no significant non-ANO grants there either. A grand total of 2 out of 35, and both weren't awarded.

1. Are you expecting that these outsiders are going to work for free or will they be compensated?
2. If compensated, where does the money (FCT) come from
I don't expect compensation for committee members. The incentive is sharing in decision-making and steering the protocol more effectively towards whatever it is that's a boon for them. That's so incredibly diverse. For instance, my boon is that I have an interest in seeing Factom succeed because it would validate ideas I've had. For someone like @TroyWiipongwii - I imagine his boon is in strengthening the W&M / Factom governance partnership because he's running their blockchain lab and wants to grow it.

If your focus is FCT, and if you're keen on helping budget our expenditure and be more lean, maybe you could start with looking at average ANO efficiency levels and propose something there?
 
Last edited:
1. Outsiders have been able to apply to be ANOs for a while now? How many have applied?
2. Outsiders could have applied to be Guides, especially because we only had 1 person express interest in being a Guide previously. How many outsiders applied then?
3. Outsiders could always submit grants. How many actually did?
4. Outsiders could join committees and working groups. How many actually did?

The data does not support your claims.
So in light of my above post, this past stakeholder approach can be summed up as "don't block participation, but don't encourage it either".

I'm proposing a switch to "actively encourage participation" - sharing in decision-making without technical requirements and electing a community secretary are pretty good steps to make that happen.

Is there any harm in this that I'm not seeing?
 
(Post 1/2)
Hi @WB .

As stated, we have had Committees for three years. We have had working groups. We have had opportunities for both ANOs and non-ANOs to get paid for their work (e.g., via grants, be an ANO, Guide, etc.). Yet, this did absolutely nothing to bring in people, as evidenced by the data you just presented (thanks for proving my point). Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the issue is NOT inclusion. I have no idea how anyone can come to any other conclusion besides this.

This proposal seeks to double down on committees being the foundation. Expecting different results from the same approach is insanity. It failed for us and there's zero evidence it has worked for any other crypto projects. Let's also look at the traditional business world. How many successful enterprises have a committee-based company structure where the committee consists of people doing the equivalent of entry-level work, and these people dictate leadership? To my knowledge, none. If it worked well, wouldn't you at least see one or two successful companies with this framework?

This proposal suggests going down a path that has never worked for anyone and has failed for us for the past three years. Continuing down this path is asinine. I am happy to change my mind about this proposal, but please back this up with actual data. Can you provide any proof of this type of approach working?
 
(Post 2/2)
This really isn't about committees though, is it? It's really about the Steering Council. That's what this proposal is really after, correct? ;) I'm actually in support of giving a ton of power to qualified people (or a person, such as a decentralized CEO), but the added bureaucracy is a complete waste of time and also ensures we'll get less qualified people on the Steering Council than if we simply held a basic election. The Committee approach is just a way to help get this proposal passed, just say so. If it weren't you guys would have way better arguments, you wouldn't have flipped out when I asked how many ANOs plan on participating on committees, asked who is interested in being on the Steering Council, or how you plan to pay for this.

Finally, I don't appreciate the attempt to censor and I really don't appreciate the person that was trying to do the censoring deleting their post instead of owning up to their huge screw-up. I would have hoped that other members involved in this proposal would have called out this behavior, or really anyone in general. Sadly, no. At least I got a screenshot for all to see.

Screen Shot 2020-11-23 at 2.41.31 PM.png
 
As stated, we have had Committees for three years. We have had working groups. We have had opportunities for both ANOs and non-ANOs to get paid for their work (e.g., via grants, be an ANO, Guide, etc.). Yet, this did absolutely nothing to bring in people, as evidenced by the data you just presented (thanks for proving my point)
You're arguing against stakeholder engagement, which is very interesting, and also repeatedly missing the point.

I can start an exclusive gentleman's club, hide the application requirements in a document at font size 1 and never promote it, and THEN claim inclusivity isn't the problem because technically people can join up. That's been your logic the entire time.

How many successful enterprises have a committee-based company structure where the committee consists of people doing the equivalent of entry-level work, and these people dictate leadership? To my knowledge, none. If it worked well, wouldn't you at least see one or two successful companies with this framework?
Companies tend to have departments. They might also have a board of directors / MT, with executive membership (CFO, CMO) backed by their departments.

Similar structure with obvious differences because we're not a traditional company. If you would run Osborne Industries in a radically different way, I'd like to hear it.

It's really about the Steering Council. That's what this proposal is really after, correct? ;)
Yes, I'd like a Steering Council? The idea came after you campaigned pretty hard to remove the Guides. Guides were a good workaround if done right. Now you're campaigning pretty hard to stop this, which leads me to believe that:

I'm actually in support of giving a ton of power to qualified people.
Isn't really true. You'll forever say there's no way to get qualified people. Because we can't pay for them, we're not interesting enough. They're not qualified enough. It's such a blocker.

This may come as a shock, but committees and the secretary aren't added to 'help get this proposal passed'. It's there to address various shortcomings together. It's there to enable a bunch of other proposals. From roadmap management, stewardship over endowments and better outreach to get positions better filled. Pretty much everything the community has been discussing as of late.

The Committee approach is just a way to help get this proposal passed, just say so. If it weren't you guys would have way better arguments, you wouldn't have flipped out when I asked how many ANOs plan on participating on committees, asked who is interested in being on the Steering Council, or how you plan to pay for this.
It's just that you keep repeating the same things. Back when we removed the Guides, too. You asked:

fgd4t3t3.png


You never seem to actually want the answers unless they fit a cynical presupposition. Months later, you continue stating we'd only have had one Guide applicant at most, while we would have easily had four. In asking those questions, you circumvent the issues we're having with outreach and stakeholder engagement that should lead to more participation in those systems. Instead you want those systems gone. It's utterly irresponsible and it has been damaging.
 
Last edited:
Months later, you continue stating we'd only have had one Guide applicant at most, while we would have easily had four. I
@WB Revisionist history, bud. Here's the timeline involving Guides:

Feb 22, 2020: Guide Removal thread started
Feb 22, 2020: In the thread, I ask people if anyone is interested in running for Guide
Feb 22, 2020: Sam asks if you or Damo would be interested
March 1, 2020: Discussion closed, poll opens up.

So, there was an entire week for anyone to step-up and express interest in being a Guide. No one showed interest in that ANO-only thread (you did on Discord). Additionally:

1. There was also a ton of discussion on Discord. This discussion started earlier than the Factomize thread. Plenty of time for people to express interest.
2. There were private conversations between people about running for Guide - No ANO wanted to step up.

There was plenty of time for people to express interest in running for Guide. Only one person did (you). I would love to hear where the other magical and qualified four Guides were going to come from though :)
 
Go Immutable's Position and Proposal:

The current proposal doesn't do anything besides move the deck chairs around on the Titanic. We'd be following a similar path to what lead us here, which I would hope would be a complete non-starter considering our spectacular collapse over the past three years.

If we want to have a chance at this protocol not blowing up, we need to do what every successful company has done: Put a competent person in charge and give them decision-making ability.

So, here's the general proposal:
  • Create the position of "Decentralized CEO" (we'll call this person "Protocol Guide")
    • This person can build a cabinet of advisers, but ultimate decision-making power resides with the "Protocol Guide"
  • Give the Protocol Guide full decision-making power over the roadmap, grant pool, and number of ANO slots
    • However, ANOs can veto this person's decisions with a 70% "ney" vote
  • This is a 6-month term, but the Protocol Guide can be removed via vote at any time
  • Scrap formal committees (informal committees and working groups can still exist)
  • Scrap ANO standing (this obviously failed and is a giant waste of time)
General Reasoning:
  • This approach closely aligns with successful business structures while also still providing for decentralized oversite
  • This approach allows us to move magnitudes faster than we have in the past since we are shedding a lot of the bureaucratic nonsense
  • This approach provides for higher-quality decision making than having unqualified ANOs make decisions

HIGH-LEVEL DESIRED PROTOCOL GUIDE QUALITIES
1. Technical knowledge
2. Business knowledge
3. Skin the Game (has clients or provides usage)

Addressing the Obvious Concern
Yes, we 100% will need to eventually heavily decentralize. But, that should be done only after we are actually a successful protocol. We're nowhere close to that right now. Full decentralization is useless if no one is using your protocol. Let's build a successful protocol first, then heavily decentralize it. Hence, the hybrid decentralized/centralized proposed approach.

Conclusion
Group consensus is great for predicting the number of gumballs in a gumball machine, but it's horrendous for running a business or a protocol. Appointing a qualified person to actually run the protocol is the correct business decision for all stakeholders and FCT holders. It's our best shot at achieving success. I don't know how anyone can dispute that.

Thanks for your consideration.
 
I'm still on the fence regarding all this bureaucracy/red tape that is being added or rebranded...

The people I would have loved to see more involved haven't showed yet, which is concerning. It's one thing to have the right structure in place and an other to get the right people involved. Our token value is quickly diminishing and I don't see how this proposal will help turn this around if the heavy weights of this protocol are not a part of this process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top