Process Discussion Factom to upgrade and change into Accumulate Network

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 Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashnStore HashnStore Innovative Secured Connection (ISC) Kompendium Kompendium Luciap Luciap Niels Klomp PrestigeIT PrestigeIT Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed None

Do we want to upgrade the Factom Protocol and become Accumulate Network, with the listed principles?

  • No, do not upgrade

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Abstain

    Votes: 0 0.0%

All votes are in

  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am all for transparency, but to me the gatekeeping you mention is more applicable to the size of the Factom community and the way we organized ANOs with overlap of development. The processes, working groups and committees were pretty open and just as with the guides there really was not a lot of (if any) gatekeeping happening at these levels.

The problem was that we basically had a really small group of ANOs of which some also provided development resources decide amongst themselves what to fund. This meant you become less open to external parties over time as they take away funds from the established parties. There was no clear distinction in buckets/categories for funds, which means you get friction between developers, marketing and for instance exchange listings. Then there really was no performance system and/or competition.

Hence why I already started working on a new grant system. The priority however shifted into getting a path forward to begin with, and until we reach that point it doesn't make an awful lot of sense to pursue putting energy and distribute funds as a result.

Hopefully after the vote we have a direction, which means a lot of people can contribute, and I am happy to Kickstart the proposal for a new grant system, which would include buckets/categories. Small payments upfront for instance for development, but majority based on set milestones. Vetted and tracked by working groups, with proper expertise in their respective areas.
 
I certainly hope with a move to DPOS and having fresh blood on board we can leave these type of energy draining discussions and accusations behind us to a large extent, because that seriously hampers progress.
We've had zero 'energy-draining' or any discussion for most of nine months, in which we've also seen zero progress until Inveniam stepped in. So the truth lies somewhere in the middle, I think.

I feel very responsible for how empty this year has been and I've taken lessons from it for the future. You get to those lessons by evaluating, and that means taking it on the chin if some parties have pent-up frustration to air, as long as they're not plain lies.
 
I was talking in general, as this hasn't been the first time and is a result of how we organized things over time. Nobody is denying these. It is always important to take lessons.

At the same time this is also a crossroad to take these lessons, get renewed energy, have new blood on board and change general sentiment. That requires everyone to reflect and decide whether and how they want to play a role moving forward.
 
I have spent time talking through what this new way forward would look like, from a technical, business, and social perspective. I am absolutely convinced that this is what Factom needs to do. It's not only that there is no other way forward, but that this is in fact a good way forward I believe.

I am grateful that Inveniam was willing to really integrate with what exists of the Factom Protocol, and from what I have seen, I believe Paul Snow has done as good a job as he possibly could bridging the gap between the Factom Protocol and what will become Accumulate and making sure the interests of both Inveniam and Factom are alligned.

So I support this direction forward, and I'm curious to see where it goes from here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top