Factom, Inc. Inter-Grant Continuity Plan. Dec -> Feb

It is also an issue of decentralisation. If Inc is awarded money without specifying what you need it for, then I seriously question whether Inc is "just another ANO".
I would like to seperate out the capacities of running Authority Servers (which Factom, Inc is operating as an Infrastructure ANO, with 50% efficiency) from the development efforts. Even if Factom Inc were not running servers, we would still have the ability and desire to develop software. I understand the conflation, as many of the people who contribute at a high level in this community also have joined an ANO group, but there are many who contribute meaningfully without being part of any ANO group. I dislike the implication that there aren't non-ANOs who are meaningfully contributing.

Keep in mind, Factom, Inc is also viewed in a different light by the US Government than any other organization, since we created the system to begin with. We have a very different risk profile than organizations who formed years after the blockchain started. Comparing the risks other organizations take and expecting Factom, Inc, (who has a lot more to lose) to be as cavalier seems like an unfair comparison.

this would simply be a case of saying "we have x FTE developers being paid y". ... That's all I wanted. It's not a large or onerous task.
Indeed. The continuity plan does indeed talk about the resources being devoted during the period. It is between 5 and 9 people on average, depending on people's schedules.

As far as how much it costs, thats not something that I can release, but it isn't hard to infer. https://www.builtinaustin.com/salaries/dev-engineer/senior-software-engineer/austin Just looking at this website doesn't take into account the additional overhead that businesses with offices, insurance, accounting departments, etc face, which are part of doing business.

This is what we got in the budget section of your previous grant ... It tells us absolutely nothing other than how much you want.
Good point, this was brought up during the discussions about the second grant round you are quoting. It was expanded on here:

It is information that you should already have readily available.
And here I think we get to the meat of the issue.

One of the things that worry executives at Factom, Inc is that potentially this whole distributed blockchain project won't be viewed by the US government as a bunch of independent companies and instead will view the entire project as a single enterprise. If that were the case, the government could compel all the ANOs from all over the world to produce a single tax return. All the various ANOs from all over the world (very few of whom have accountants on staff) would all need to share all their internal finances with each other, figure out exchange rates across a dozen different currencies and jurisdictions using different accounting schemes (cash vs accrual, etc). This would end the whole Factom project.

None of the other ANOs are likely congizant of these kinds of risks. This goes back to the having more to lose. The more that this grant process looks like a department inside a common enterprise the riskier it is from a governmental perspective. What you are asking for is trending more towards something like internal controls that are applied to a department. Other grant recipients may be happy to share fine grained internal details, but it is much riskier for Factom, Inc. to do what you are asking.

Factom, Inc can't participate in things that can be seen as leading that direction. For example, Factom, Inc did not participate in the process for creating a foundation: https://factomize.com/forums/threads/vote-to-create-a-wyoming-non-profit.1374/

The question you should be asking yourself is: "Is this a good price for the value being delivered?" The value being continuous development, maintenence, and reducing the attack surface, leading to more stability and scale.

This is from the budget section of the BIF core development grant: TOTAL: 18,500 FCT (74K dollar at current price of 4$/FCT, with 60K dollar subsequent proposals)
This is probably the best way of showing what we are asking for is delivering extreme value. I'm not sure I could give better evidence. This request is about 2/3ds of the amount requested for between 2x and 4x the number of people working on it. If you think that the BIF grant is a good value (where BIF is delivering self-education at this point) then the Factom, Inc funding is a fantastic deal!
@Brian Deery

Could you do the math for me in your last comparison, where you say 2/3 of the requested value for 2 to 4 times as many people? Seems you are mixing up several things there

5-9 people which is variable so you really cannot calculate with it at but alas. 56k per month equals 168k per 3 months for Inc
2 people at 60K per 3 months (which has been provisional as has been stated that rates would be based on actual costs/overhead).
@Brian Deery - Thank you for the detailed explanation on regulatory and legal risk as it especially relates to Factom, Inc. I can sympathize for the sandwiched situation Inc. probably feels they're in at times between ensuring decentralization in the eyes of regulators, and providing the same transparency and detail that some ANO's are more able to provide. I guess the piece of detail that I feel I am missing is this: Why does accepting a hard number, such as $9.13 (or whatever frozen price we determine payout to be at) indicate a move towards being centralized in the eyes of regulators?

I apologize if I've misinterpreted what you're trying to say. The crux of this thread has centered around clarity in how Inc. will be paid for the requested funding, and I feel like we need clarity on Inc.'s exact position on this particular point.

With regard to the question you suggest that we should be asking ourselves, "'Is this a good price for the value being delivered?' The value being continuous development, maintenance, and reducing the attack surface, leading to more stability and scale." -- My belief is that most all of us feel $56,800 worth of USD funding, as paid in FCT's, per month, is a great price. We're just trying to determine how that FCT funding is paid out; that really is the only major question in play here.
Last edited:

Does Factom Inc. propose a FCT/USD price point they would prefer or a date/time they want to propose to lock in the FCT price in order to receive the $56,800/mo compensation? I may have missed a set number or date. Since this is in arrears, some other option would be an average of the daily closing price for the period of performance, Dec-beginning of next grant round perhaps? I would like to see a set FCT number before this moves on to any kind of vote, but open to the community to chime in as well.



Crypto Logic
We would to hear back from @Brian Deery in this thread before committing our support, but in general terms we would like to state that we support Factom incorporated getting paid for their work dececember->february, and for them to also apply for a forward-looking grant in the upcoming grant round.