Factomize has lowered its efficiency to 0%

[David Chapman]

We're going to be working on some additional dev projects.

Edit 02/21

Factomize will be working on a variety of governance related projects. For a long time, we've wanted to improve governance efficiency and transparency but other priorities were coming first. We're at a point now where Belazor and I can work on these projects. We will provide regular updates.

 

[Niels Klomp]

I don't think people are questioning whether you will deliver, but a bit more info?

Open-source? proprietary? Factom? PegNet? Forum? Any idea of timeline?

 

[David Chapman]

I don't think people are questioning whether you will deliver, but a bit more info?

Open-source? proprietary? Factom? PegNet? Forum? Any idea of timeline?

I'll just cut and paste with a small edit:

Yep, we understanding that the lack of details is frustrating and rightly so. I guess we would just ask that the community look back at all the contributions Go Immutable Factomize has made over the last year (scroll-up and see dropdowns at the top of this thread), the countless hours of grunt work and non-enviable tasks we have tackled, and simply give us the benefit of the doubt (while obviously also holding us accountable). I'd like to think we've at least earned the benefit of the doubt at this point in time.

If this ecosystem isn't going to demand more and hold people accountable, I don't see why I should make the effort. As being transparent and communicating well does take some effort.

 

[Niels Klomp]

I just knew you would gonna post that and that was the reason.

So at what point would that mean loosing standing if you stay at these levels without people being able to see it, or know about it? It is also the end of the grantpool if everybody would start going down this route

 

[David Chapman]

So at what point would that mean loosing standing if you stay at these levels without people being able to see it, or know about it? It is also the end of the grantpool if everybody would start going down this route

If you are asking in a round-about way though if this is a year-long project though, the answer is "no."

 

[Matt Osborne]

Due to Factomize's track record, Go Immutable supports this decision and is excited to see what David and his team deliver.

 

[Niels Klomp]

Nope was not a roundabout way. You know I am not like that. I think it is obvious I will support it. But the interesting part is that some people are hell bend on providing all kinds of details, yet at the same time we are totally fine with projects we know nothing about and which were definitely not voted by consensus (that is a good thing at the same time, but that is another discussion).

Just asking the questions here, because some people for whatever reasons don't dare or care I guess

 

[Nolan Bauer]

I support this change for the reason being I support the independence that ANOs have on setting their own efficiency and the historical track record Factomize has had in the past. Additionally, Factomize has been responsible in raising their efficiency when the proposed projects have completed. I only ask for updates if you can provide them.

 

[Anton Ilzheev]

Support
—
Added: Factomize has a good history of low efficiency accountability and many delivered grant projects. As I mentioned in my reaffirm vote, I support Factomize in advance at their new efficiency and hope they will share the progress and updates of this development project(s), so it will allow me to reaffirm their standing again the next time.

 

[Alex]

Should Factoshi go to 0% too? I feel a mystery project coming on...

 

[Quintilian]

I'm a bit perplexed by this whole thing. I've followed the discussion over the past week and I do understand the point David is trying to make.... However I do not believe it is very productive. I think the way forward would be to keep ANOs independently accountable by using the ANO standing system as intended, i.e standing parties should pull support from teams doing indefinite "mystery projects" without providing appropriate updates.... I'll have to ponder how to move forward with my own vote as a standing party, but I'm starting to lean towards not extending support to ANOs operating below X efficiency (as I've mentioned before I will) due to all the issues associated with lack of accountability.

 

[Anton Ilzheev]

Should Factoshi go to 0% too? I feel a mystery project coming on...

Not sure if sarcasm is relevant Alex
I don’t think that David would ruin Factomize reputation in the Factom ecosystem with low accountability and under-performance at their chosen efficiency.

 

[WB]

Not sure if sarcasm is relevant Alex
I don’t think that David would ruin Factomize reputation in the Factom ecosystem with low accountability and under-performance at their chosen efficiency.

Sarcasm or not, there've been a lot of 'mystery projects' as of late. You tell me how many of those have worked out up to this point. I don't doubt Factomize's ability to deliver, but in the way this is worded, this triggers copycat behaviour and conversely many more non-productive discussions.

Thankfully we have a fix for that.

@Tor Paulsen I think a logical step to take is for the guides to discuss David's proposed efficiency bracket system, work out a real proposal based on ANO feedback and put it to a vote. Tying efficiency ranges to standing would prevent copycat behaviour by those who lack the standing to.

 

[Quintilian]

@WB thanks for the input. I am personally not in favor of a system where your payouts are dependent on your ranking, but I would support an amendment where an expected minimum efficiency is tied to Factoid price. In fact I will suggest the formally in a few weeks (right now there are too many issues going on at the same time (ANOs system online, grant factomd-update later today, guide process amendment and I know that somebody is just about to put up the grant system for amendment too... I'll let those things settle and then formally suggest it.

 

[Nate Miller]

Sorry, is this a joke or a test? I'm confused, same with @Matt Osborne's thread about testing ANOs by dropping to 10% efficiency? We're going to have problems if we can't operate 'in good faith'. It's not healthy if I have to assume people are trying to trick me.

 

[Alex]

@David Chapman, can we get more information about this efficiency change? Factoshi needs to be able to assess whether Factomize's efficiency is commensurate with your contributions and that is not possible without further information.

How long do you expect this efficiency change to last? What kind of benefit is the protocol likely to see? What are the odds that you will be successful? When can we know more?

I trust Factomize if you tell me that you cannot reveal all the details, but allowing prolonged periods of low efficiency without explanation would set a very poor precedent, even for one of our most trusted and hard working ANOs.

 

[Valentin Ganev]

Given the timing of this efficiency change, the discussions Factomize has had with GoI about their efficiency, as well as the opening comments in this thread, Factomatic is concerned that the main driver behind this is not a new project opportunity, but a response to those discussions. Can you assure the community that this is not the case? Factomize has done an outstanding job on a number of development efforts, but we cannot approve of an efficiency change if the catalyst is a disagreement on the efficiency of another ANO.

If memory serves me right, this is also not the first time that Factomize reduced their efficiency to work on a secret project and the last time this happened, you eventually pulled the plug on the project. What makes you believe it will be different this time around and how certain are you that there will be any tangible benefit for the protocol?

 

[Alistair McLeay]

Please provide more details. I don't really understand if this is to make a point.

 

[David Chapman]

I see the community is demanding more transparency which I applaud.

Factomize will be working on a variety of governance related projects. For a long time, we've wanted to improve governance efficiency and transparency but other projects were taking priority. We're at a point now where Belazor and I can work on these projects. I believe sound governance will be one of the most critical and defining factors when it comes to determining which blockchain projects are successful over the long haul. I've recently held numerous conversations with a fund interested in the Factom protocol and they were very impressed with what they see happening on this forum. They haven't seen more active, transparent governance on any project. And yet our systems and processes can be better. Much better. And as this ship is turned around, it will make a big difference over the long haul.

Factomize will regularly update you on the state of our projects AND break down hours worked for transparency and accountability.

 

[Quintilian]

I see the community is demanding more transparency which I applaud.

Factomize will be working on a variety of governance related projects. For a long time, we've wanted to improve governance efficiency and transparency but other projects were taking priority. We're at a point now where Belazor and I can work on these projects. I believe sound governance will be one of the most critical and defining factors when it comes to determining which blockchain projects are successful over the long haul. I've recently held numerous conversations with a fund interested in the Factom protocol and they were very impressed with what they see happening on this forum. They haven't seen more active, transparent governance on any project. And yet our systems and processes can be better. Much better. And as this ship is turned around, it will make a big difference over the long haul.

Factomize will regularly update you on the state of our projects AND break down hours worked for transparency and accountability.

Thanks David.

how will you decide what to develop? Standing party consensus? if so, how will that consensus be met?

Also, why do this through lowered efficiency instead of grants which has seemingly served you well before?

 

[David Chapman]

how will you decide what to develop? Standing party consensus? if so, how will that consensus be met?

Also, why do this through lowered efficiency instead of grants which has seemingly served you well before?

Some projects we'll just do, others we'll seek input from specific parties, others we'll seek consensus on specific aspects, and others we may seek full Standing Party consensus. It depends on the work.

I proposed that all ANOs be at a specific efficiency and all additional work go through the grant pool. That idea was shot down so here we are.

 

[Alex]

Can you tell us what these projects are? Governance has not typically been an area where ANOs carry out work independently of standing party oversight.

 

[David Chapman]

Can you tell us what these projects are? Governance has not typically been an area where ANOs carry out work independently of standing party oversight.

Examples include but are not limited to:

1. A sort of wizard to help people determine where / how / what kinds of threads to create.
2. Possibly tying more information into the Daily Update depending upon this poll.
3. Creation of a Discord bot for more efficient communication.
4. Improvement of the Governance Meeting Agenda for more efficient meetings and transparency.
5. Improvements to this page and the sub pages: https://factomize.com/forums/governance/
6. UI / UX Improvements to the grant system
7. UI / UX improvements to the ANO Standing System
8. Change of the factomize.com/forums/ url to factomize.com/governance/ and fixing anything hardcoded to account for that.
9. An efficient means of doing line item editing and voting on governance documents.

And the list goes on and on.

 

[Quintilian]

Examples include but are not limited to:

1. A sort of wizard to help people determine where / how / what kinds of threads to create.
2. Possibly tying more information into the Daily Update depending upon this poll.
3. Creation of a Discord bot for more efficient communication.
4. Improvement of the Governance Meeting Agenda for more efficient meetings and transparency.
5. Improvements to this page and the sub pages: https://factomize.com/forums/governance/
6. UI / UX Improvements to the grant system
7. UI / UX improvements to the ANO Standing System
8. Change of the factomize.com/forums/ url to factomize.com/governance/ and fixing anything hardcoded to account for that.
9. An efficient means of doing line item editing and voting on governance documents.

And the list goes on and on.

Is integrating Kambani and token-holder voting on the list of standing parties want to move in that direction?

 

[David Chapman]

Is integrating Kambani and token-holder voting on the list of standing parties want to move in that direction?

No, as Who would do most of that work under the Core and General Dev grant we were awarded.

 

[Quintilian]

No, as Who would do most of that work under the Core and General Dev grant we were awarded.

Would Who also do the necessary work to the Forum or is that something Belazor will have to facilitate? If so will that be covered by this reduced efficiency?

 

[David Chapman]

Would Who also do the necessary work to the Forum or is that something Belazor will have to facilitate? If so will that be covered by this reduced efficiency?

If we needed Belazor to contribute on that, then yes, it would be covered under this reduced efficiency.

Who is paid for, for the next 3 months. Belazor and I are covered under this reduced efficiency.

 

[Mitchell Berry]

Hope it goes well. And if it doesn't please open source it for someone else to try.

 

[David Chapman]

As two Standing Parties (@Factomatic and @Tor Paulsen) have set arbitrary "X% Efficiency or lower we remove Standing" benchmarks rather than evaluate on case by case basis that have resulted in Factomize losing Standing, we have decided not to move forward with these projects. We cannot risk more Standing Parties taking on those benchmarks and Factomize's future be at risk.

As such, we will not further the protocol at lower efficiency and our dev will no doubt be seeing work outside this ecosystem.

We will be increasing our efficiency back up to 40%.

 

[Niels Klomp]

Interested to hear there response as to me @Factomize is roughly the only entity in this system I would trust with running at 0% without much questions asked as they have always shown to have the interest of the protocol in mind.

The ANO remuneration and grantpool is about furthering the protocol. I as well as BIF/Sphereon prefer the grantpool above remuneration, but applying a general arbitrary limit against every single situation isn't correct IMO. Net result is that Factomize won't move forward at this point in time.

@Factomatic @Tor Paulsen