Ratified Doc 107 - Factom Grant Process

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining Brian Deery BuildingIM BuildingIM Canonical Ledgers Canonical Ledgers CryptoLogic CryptoLogic Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow De Facto De Facto Factom Inc Factom Inc Factomatic Factomatic Factomize Factomize Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashnStore HashnStore LayerTech LayerTech Luciap Luciap Matters Matters Multicoin Capital Multicoin Capital Niels Klomp PrestigeIT PrestigeIT Quintilian RewardChain RewardChain Samuel Vanderwaal Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed Julian Fletcher-Taylor

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


Have not voted

Authority Nodes Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockchain Innovation Foundation

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi everyone.

This is the ratification thread for Doc 107 - Factom Grant Process.

The document is based on the previous single use grant process documents, but differs from those due to the fact that it is a normal (i.e not "single use") process, which will cover all future Factom grant rounds in the foreseeable future. It can of course be amended or cancelled by the standing parties through invoking the procedures in Doc 002 (Administration of governance- and community documents).


This document has was made available for the community/standing parties to review about a week ago in this discussion thread.
If you have not read that thread I urge you to do so before providing feedback or voting on the document, as it describes the changes made to the document (compared to doc 153), as well as the rationale behind these changes.


You may use the comment-feature in the google-document to provide suggestions/feedback - or discuss in this thread.


I would also like to take this opportunity to thank @Shuang Leng for her phenomenal feedback on this and previous documents. Her attention to detail is second to none, and we are all extremely lucky to have her in our community! :)

Tor
 
Last edited:

Chappie

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

Guides and 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, Guides will vote first and 4 must vote yes otherwise the process ends. If 4 do vote yes, ANOs then 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.
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
Matthias Fortin has made a motion to end the discussion early. If someone seconds this motion by selecting the button below, a vote on the motion will start.

A majority voting yay will pass the motion and the discussion will end immediately. This motion will remain open until the normal discussion period ends or a motion to end the discussion is passed by a majority.
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
Colin Campbell has seconded the motion to end the discussion early.

A motion is now active at the top of this thread to vote if you want to end the discussion early and move on the next phase. A majority voting yes will pass the motion and the discussion will be closed immediately. This vote will remain open until the normal discussion period ends or another motion is passed.
 
David was not talking about the ratification @Keith Pincombe . He was talking about the vote time of 48 hours for the grant that will not make it because it's total amount of requested FCT is larger than the pool can accommodate..

Typically we have at least 72 hours on ratifications and votes, to make sure that whenever a weekend is included we give people at least one business day. For the grant cutoff it impacts one entity and everybody is involved with the votes anyway. Since we want to have the time between grant outcome and payout as short as possible I believe 48 hours is enough.
 
Is two days enough for grant cuttoff voting? It is for me but someone usually takes issue with a 48 hours window for any vote.
I have been a proponent for minimum 72 hours for governance votes myself, but this one is a bit different. The proposal is already well known (been known for 2 weeks at the point of this voting), and during the previous "cutoff votes" we have seen that most votes have come in very quickly after the vote was put up.

It is also a simple "yes/no" vote with no other considerations, and the grant has already been approved by the standing parties (but the funds ran out). In the previous cutoff rounds I believe the grants have gotten 100% support when readjusted to fit inside the pool.

So with the above in mind I suggested 48 hours for the vote to try make the period from grant approvals to payment as short as possible (which has been an issue in previous rounds).

We are now sitting at 30 days from grant application submission deadline to grant payout. Less than one month is definitely what we should aim for in my mind.


I'll let it be 48 hours in the document if someone else doesn't make a good case for upping it to 72 :)
 
4.8.2.2
Each grant application requires two separate voting actions, an Approve/Disapprove vote and a rank-based vote, except for the governance-defined grants (Guide pay, Anchor, and Oracle) which will only have an Approve/Disapprove vote. The Approve/Disapprove vote marks whether the standing party believes the grant meets the threshold for eligibility for the grant round.
The rank-based vote is filled out simultaneously. In this vote, the voting party will give a rank from 1-N where N is the number of grants in the grant pool, and where the parties ranking of the grant starts at 1 as most favorable and goes to N as least favorable.
What happens if someone else wants to run the Oracle and/or Anchor systems? And can potentially do it for cheaper? Why do those two grants just have the approve/disapprove? Shouldn't they go up for competition if so desired by the community?
 
4.8.2.2

What happens if someone else wants to run the Oracle and/or Anchor systems? And can potentially do it for cheaper? Why do those two grants just have the approve/disapprove? Shouldn't they go up for competition if so desired by the community?
You are absolutely right I think.

Would adding a note that it will be a approve/disapprove vote if there are only one application for Oracle/Anchor but turning it into an ordinary vote if there are multiple alleviate the issue?
 
That seems like a good solution to me.
First, the governance-defined grants, if approved by at least ⅗ of the votes cast, will be set aside along with their corresponding FCT amounts from the grant pool.

Note: If there are competing grants submitted for the same “governance defined grant” these grants will be scored in accordance with paragraph 4.8.3.2.


I added the Note to thet governance-defined grants. para 4.8.3.2 describes scoring of non-governance grants.
 
@Brian Deery I have moved your comments over to this thread as you submitted them to the "community input"-thread and not the ratification one (this one):

In 4.2 I have added text recognizing technical issues in the grant submission deadline.

We need to be cognizant of potential technical issues with the grant process. The tech isn't infallible, and leaving a way to compensate for problems is needed.
You added the text in red to the document (section 4.2). Could you provide an example of such a technical issue?
"Applications after this date will be discarded by the guides when moving on with the process (aside from technical issues)."

There really needs to be an extra day or so of discussion for the grant applicants to be able to respond. This bit Niels earlier in one of his grants, and haveing a response period would be desirable for last minute questions.
Do you suggest that we close the threads for questions 24 hours prior to discussion phase ending so the grantees have the last day to answer before the threads close?
 
I can see it going both way after thinking about it. If the goal is to bring the application time and the payout time as close together as possible, then not having an additional response period would optimize for that goal.

I would have a slight preference for the response period. It would have helped things in the past. It drops the question period from 8 days to 7 to ask questions. That is still probably enough time for questions.

I don't like the overall idea of cutting off of discussion, but would advocate for additional threads to be created to continue the conversation after the cutoff period as a workaround for last minute questions.
 
You added the text in red to the document (section 4.2). Could you provide an example of such a technical issue?
"Applications after this date will be discarded by the guides when moving on with the process (aside from technical issues)."
as for technical issues, if the forum breaks 2 days into the grant period, it would go against the spirit of being inclusive if a DNS error or something silly would cause some grants not to be accepted. Leaving some discretion to account for potential catastrophes seems very prudent.

There are thousands of ways that the process can have a hiccup. The forum can have a harddrive crash. The forums aren't robust in an adversarial environment, like an on-chain governance system would strive to be.
There are a handful of offensive things someone can do to attack the forum or individuals which I would rather not post publicly.

To have a functioning governance, there needs to be discretion in the face of anomalies in this transition phase.
 
Last edited:
as for technical issues, if the forum breaks 2 days into the grant period, it would go against the spirit of being inclusive if a DNS error or something silly would cause some grants not to be accepted. Leaving some discretion to account for potential catastrophes seems very prudent.

There are thousands of ways that the process can have a hiccup. The forum can have a harddrive crash. The forums aren't robust in an adversarial environment, like an on-chain governance system would strive to be.
There are a handful of offensive things someone can do to attack the forum or individuals which I would rather not post publicly.

To have a functioning governance, there needs to be discretion in the face of anomalies in this transition phase.
Thanks Brian.

I also think it is prudent to keep the door open to accept an application after the official deadline has passed if it was due to an external factor like forum breaking or parts of the internet going down....

"My dog ate my application" won't fly with me though :)
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
The final poll is available for Guides to vote on now for 3 days. If Guides pass the vote with 4 "Yes" votes then ANOs will be able to vote. If Guides fail to pass, there will be no further action.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top