Factomize has lowered its efficiency to 0%

You are viewing an older update. There is a newer update available.
Previous Update: Factomize has lowered its efficiency to 0%
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.
I'm perfectly fine with questions being asked of us. They should be, in fact. And if, after all those questions, the reason for removal of Standing was "After proper evaluation of your proposal, we feel your efficiency is too low for the amount of work you'll be doing" then I'd be ok with it. An arbitrary number held across all ANOs as a single point of failure is lazy and stupid.
 
I would trust Factomize to operate at 0% efficiency, as I know David very well and their track record is stellar.

This is a principle decision because I do not believe our current system is able to properly assess how well low-efficiency ANOs are operating (just look at all the discontent we've seen the past year), and my opinion as a guide is development requiring an entity to operate at those low levels should be handled via the grant pool.

If Factomize decides to say "fuck it", fire their devs, and blame me for that while still having 81% support after I removed standing.. Well that's their decision.
 
I would trust Factomize to operate at 0% efficiency, as I know David very well and their track record is stellar.

This is a principle decision because I do not believe our current system is able to properly assess how well low-efficiency ANOs are operating (just look at all the discontent we've seen the past year), and my opinion as a guide is development requiring an entity to operate at those low levels should be handled via the grant pool.

If Factomize decides to say "fuck it", fire their devs, and blame me for that while still having 81% support after I removed standing.. Well that's their decision.
I blame you for having poorly thought band-aids on an arterial wound and passing it off as principled and hurting the ecosystem in the process.
 

Alistair McLeay

RewardChain
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%.
This is unfortunate. RewardChain would have liked to have seen you moving forward with these projects.
 

Valentin Ganev

Factomatic
We outlined our reasoning for not supporting ANOs operating at below 10% efficiency in our comments to both Factomize and DBGrow @Niels Klomp. We believe that every single ANO should be making at least a small contribution to the grant pool, and efforts, which need a larger amount of funding, should be handled via the grant pool.

Yes, it can be argued that the criterion (ANO efficiency) and the percentage (10%) are both arbitrary, but at least they are objective, which is more than can be said of the criteria of pretty much any Standing Party. We chose one and are consistently applying it to all ANOs. We are doing this because we believe having all ANOs contribute at least something to the grant pool is beneficial for the entire ecosystem and in our priority list this comes above the individual preferences of ANOs, when their efficiency is concerned. The difference between 0% and 10% is also very small in $ terms at current FCT prices (~$750/month pre-tax), so we don't think that operating at 0% or 10% can make any significant impact to development or other efforts.

We view the Standing system as a representation of the collective consensus of Standing parties. Having a diverse set of criteria from different ANOs is the only way we can ensure a holistic and fair assessment, as many ANOs are bound to prioritise different aspects in their vote (technical, legal, governance, business, marketing, efficiency, commercial projects, open-source projects, protocol usage, etc., etc.). As such, every Standing Party should have the freedom to select at least a portion of their criteria independently, and so long as these criteria are applied consistently across all ANOs, we do not see a problem. That is exactly what Factomatic has done here.

We also do not see a reason why Factomize would choose to oscillate between 0% and 40% efficiency based on the vote of a mere two (or actually one) Standing Parties, as their overall Standing is not even remotely jeopardised from this. Overall, if Factomize believes this criterion is "lazy and stupid" they have every right to ignore it as such and continue operating at 0% without any real effect, until a point in time where a majority of ANOs may decide to adopt a similar criterion. At this point, Factomize would either have to accept the consensus of the Standing Parties -- that a majority have chosen to enforce a minimum efficiency -- and respect it, or they would risk losing their ANO spot. There is nothing contentious about this, it is exactly the way the Standing system is supposed to be functioning.

Speaking for myself now, I really hope that in a few months we don't have any ANO with 100% Standing, as this shows the ecosystem is not demanding enough. It should be nearly impossible to satisfy the requirements of over 25 diverse and critical "judges" in the system and I would, in fact, encourage everyone to be setting high standards when they consider ANO Standing votes and to gradually increase the bar over time. This is the only way to ensure we as a community are developing and progress is being made.
 
Standing by its definition is a combination of factors you weigh to get to a vote of yes or no.

Using one argument even though objective and applying that both as a veto and to all situations means people really cannot execute as they have to fear everyone using their own vetoes.

Let's say you stick to 10%, what are you gonna do when the next infra ANO moves to 15%? Nobody knows your rules and as it is above 10% they should be fine right? I rather have people doing subjective voting as long as they explain what needs to change with regards to performance, involvement, output etc, than everyone make up their own absolute value and using that as a deal breaker.

For instance I have no problem with you scoring some negative points because you believe the grantpool should be used. If the sum of the total ends up in loss of standing fine.. But you are using it to make sure people move in your direction IMO. That will almost certainly create a negative feedback cycle.
 

Valentin Ganev

Factomatic
Standing by its definition is a combination of factors you weigh to get to a vote of yes or no.

Using one argument even though objective and applying that both as a veto and to all situations means people really cannot execute as they have to fear everyone using their own vetoes.
I think you're missing my point, Niels. If a handful of ANOs decided to set their own criteria regarding efficiency or anything else for that matter (which I once again what to emphasise is fully within their rights) this in itself is not a veto and will have no effect whatsoever on the overall Standing of individual ANOs.

Only if a critical mass of ANOs decided to use the same set of criteria, do individual ANOs have to really start considering them. And if at that point you don't do it, you are going against what is essentially the consensus of the Standing Parties and you will rightfully be in danger of losing your spot. However, until then, you have all the flexibility you want, unless you're hellbent on having 100% Standing, which to put it bluntly is the ANO's issue not the concern of the entities doing the voting.

Let's say you stick to 10%, what are you gonna do when the next infra ANO moves to 15%? Nobody knows your rules and as it is above 10% they should be fine right? I rather have people doing subjective voting as long as they explain what needs to change with regards to performance, involvement, output etc, than everyone make up their own absolute value and using that as a deal breaker.
We never said that operating at 10% or above efficiency automatically grants you Standing in our books. Our voting indicates so, as we have removed Standing from several ANOs operating at a significantly higher efficiency. We said that operating at below 10% efficiency will automatically mean we remove Standing at this point in time and the two are very different. If an infra ANO goes to 15%, they will be evaluated based on their contributions, same as anyone else operating at >=10% efficiency.

For instance I have no problem with you scoring some negative points because you believe the grantpool should be used. If the sum of the total ends up in loss of standing fine.. But you are using it to make sure people move in your direction IMO. That will almost certainly create a negative feedback cycle.
I'm surprised by your comments to be honest. It's as if Factomatic hasn't invested the time to provide each ANO we voted for individual feedback and as if the discussion about a minimum efficiency is happening out of the blue. We've had this discussion multiple times already, both in the form of a minimum efficiency enforced in our governance documents, as well as discussions about switching all ANOs to infra and doing all work via the grant pool.

If it would make people feeling strongly about our vote any better, I'd like to point out that what you describe above as a multi-factor evaluation process is exactly what we're doing, we're just assigning the factor "contributes at least 10% of ANO server revenue to the grant pool" a very large weight. It's not any different to the arbitrary criteria chosen by Factomize (or any other ANO for that matter) and the arbitrary weight they assign to each criterion.

If we are asked to defend our decision further, we have no problem doing so, however we would like to see the same type of questions asked of all Standing Parties for their criteria and weights and the same level of in-depth answers first, before we can justify allocating more time to answer queries directed towards our choice of factors.

Should any Standing Party feel that our decision to choose this criterion affects the ecosystem negatively to a very large extent, we have no issue with this Standing Party removing Standing from us for damaging the protocol (or however the exact reason will be phrased) without fear of us reciprocating, so long as the same measure is applied to all other ANOs.
 
Last edited:
We view the Standing system as a representation of the collective consensus of Standing parties. Having a diverse set of criteria from different ANOs is the only way we can ensure a holistic and fair assessment, as many ANOs are bound to prioritise different aspects in their vote (technical, legal, governance, business, marketing, efficiency, commercial projects, open-source projects, protocol usage, etc., etc.). As such, every Standing Party should have the freedom to select at least a portion of their criteria independently, and so long as these criteria are applied consistently across all ANOs, we do not see a problem. That is exactly what Factomatic has done here.
You've kind of defeated your own point, here. "[...] diverse set of criteria [...]" (emphasis mine.)

You did not apply a set of criteria. You applied one criterion. This is why your decision is being called arbitrary.

If you had applied a sliding scale like "1 point for every 10% efficiency at above 20% and -1 point for every efficiency at or below 10%" or something, and this was part of a number of different criteria (one might even say part of a diverse set of criteria, if one was so inclined), then you wouldn't be getting called out for arbitrariness, even if it meant losing standing.

What you essentially said is this:
  • It doesn't matter whether you have always delivered on time in the past
  • It doesn't matter whether you have always updated the community on the progress of your development work
  • It doesn't matter whether the projects you wish to undertake with the extra funding will greatly benefit the protocol
  • It doesn't matter whether a grant round has just started and your project(s) cannot wait for the next one [f.ex.: added automation being ready at a reasonable time after the current Guide period ends]
  • Literally nothing else matters

You know Factomize would have spent the added funds well even outside of grant rounds (which has more formal oversight).
You know Factomize would have kept the community up to date on the progress of the work via screenshots even outside of grant rounds.
You know Factomize would have opened the system to extensive feedback, scrutiny and testing during its open beta phase.
You know Factomize would have been open to feedback even after it was deployed, fixing bugs within minutes or hours of them being discovered.

Yet, you decided that this was worth exactly nil, because Factomize wanted an extra 10% in order to pay for more dev time in order to complete the project(s) quicker than what would be possible with less funding.
Given the fact that you say you do actually apply a set of criteria, but you also say "We will not be supporting ANOs operating at less than 10% efficiency at this point in time, as we believe that the grant pool is one of the most important aspects of the ecosystem and that every ANO must make contributions to it.", I'm forced to assume the % was the only thing that caused Factomize to lose standing in your eyes.

I get that you don't want Factomize to set a precedent where everyone just goes to 0% in order to fund their own pet projects that didn't make it through the grant rounds. That is a valid concern. The difference is, this wasn't a project that didn't get funded. It wasn't a case of "if you won't fund it, we'll make you fund it". It's a long time until the next grant round. Delaying this project until then means another Guide term is almost required, which does still end up costing the protocol money.

@David Chapman can speak for himself, but I strongly believe he did not reduce efficiency on a whim.

If we are asked to defend our decision further, we have no problem doing so, however we would like to see the same type of questions asked of all Standing Parties for their criteria and weights and the same level of in-depth answers first, before we can justify allocating more time to answer queries directed towards our choice of factors.
Oooooorrrrrr... you could make your scoring rubric public along with every vote without people needing to ask for clarification, and risk getting a wall of text that has little actual substance.

But maybe I'm wrong and maybe @David Chapman actually spent 12 hours per vote filling out that scoring sheet, which might be an unreasonable ask for other ANOs to do 🤷‍♂️
 

Valentin Ganev

Factomatic
You've kind of defeated your own point, here. "[...] diverse set of criteria [...]" (emphasis mine.)

You did not apply a set of criteria. You applied one criterion. This is why your decision is being called arbitrary.
(rest of post pertaining to the above cut out for brevity)
Please read through my post above, as I addressed this particular point there:

If it would make people feeling strongly about our vote any better, I'd like to point out that what you describe above as a multi-factor evaluation process is exactly what we're doing, we're just assigning the factor "contributes at least 10% of ANO server revenue to the grant pool" a very large weight. It's not any different to the arbitrary criteria chosen by Factomize (or any other ANO for that matter) and the arbitrary weight they assign to each criterion.
I have the feeling that this discussion is being presented in a light, which would imply that the vote of Factomatic and the former Guide Tor Paulsen somehow blocks Factomize from operating at 0% efficiency and from carrying out their development work at this efficiency. I absolutely disagree with that notion and I have explained at length why I feel that is not the case above. To re-iterate:
  • one or a handful of Standing Parties setting criteria, which result in another ANOs losing standing based on those criteria, is not at all an issue for the ANOs losing standing unless the majority of ANOs decide to set the same criteria. In such case, we would allbe forced to abide by this consensus. In the case of Factomize, as has been pointed out multiple times already, the fact that Factomatic and Tor Paulsen removed Standing due to an efficiency limit we chose:
    • does not jeopardise Factomize's overall standing;
    • does not prevent them from pursuing the development work in question, as there is no effect on Factomize if they operate at 0% (due to the above);
The only scenario in which Factomize is somehow affected by our decision is if you guys are hellbent on having 100% Standing while also operating at 0% efficiency. We cannot bend our grading criteria to satisfy individual Standing % targets set by ANOs, as it would defeat the entire purpose of the Standing system.
 
Last edited:
Please read through my post above, as I addressed this particular point there:
And yet, my entire point stands (the rest of my post which you did not address in any way); by assigning such a large weight to this particular point, it clearly renders the entire rest of your scoring rubric moot. It makes no difference if you have 1, 10 or 100 points in your scoring rubric if one particular criterion adds or removes eleventy bajillion points whereas every other metric works on +/- 3 points.

I have the feeling that this discussion is being presented in a light, which would imply that the vote of Factomatic and the former Guide Tor Paulsen, somehow blocks Factomize from operating at 0% efficiency and from carrying out their development work at this efficiency.
No, this discussion is presented in a light which implies that assigning a disproportionately large amount of weight to one particular criterion, which makes it impossible to keep standing, is arbitrary and is a poorly designed system.

If your system made it so that if people who had failed (or middling) grants and a poor track record for keeping the community up to date with their progress and had made questionable funding choices in the past - if they wanted to lower efficiency and were penalised enough to turn the vote into "remove standing", then it would not be arbitrary.

Your scoring system is arbitrary because it does not allow for any redeeming factors. That is literally the definition of "arbitrary".
 

Valentin Ganev

Factomatic
And yet, my entire point stands (the rest of my post which you did not address in any way); by assigning such a large weight to this particular point, it clearly renders the entire rest of your scoring rubric moot. It makes no difference if you have 1, 10 or 100 points in your scoring rubric if one particular criterion adds or removes eleventy bajillion points whereas every other metric works on +/- 3 points.
No, your point does not stand in my view. You are challenging the weights we assign to different criteria in our grading and we cannot approve other Standing Parties dictating the weight we assign to each criteria because they disagree with the ones we're using. I find it strange that I even have to say this.

That's the reason I also didn't address the rest of your original post, as it's based on the premise that we have chosen one criterion that outweighs the rest of the aspects we're considering and that you think this doesn't make sense. That's effectively what we have done and I have already said why we did it: we deem the Grant pool to be absolutely crucial to the ecosystem and if you're an ANO you must make a meaningful contribution to the grant pool, if you want to receive Standing from Factomatic.

I understand you disagree with this and I respect your opinion. I expect you to respect our chosen grading criteria as well and I'm also starting to expect the same vigor in challenging other ANOs' votes. I'm really looking forward to the justification of the votes of some of the other Standing Parties should this happen 🍿

No, this discussion is presented in a light which implies that assigning a disproportionately large amount of weight to one particular criterion, which makes it impossible to keep standing, is arbitrary and is a poorly designed system.

If your system made it so that if people who had failed (or middling) grants and a poor track record for keeping the community up to date with their progress and had made questionable funding choices in the past - if they wanted to lower efficiency and were penalised enough to turn the vote into "remove standing", then it would not be arbitrary.

Your scoring system is arbitrary because it does not allow for any redeeming factors. That is literally the definition of "arbitrary".
While I agree the percentage chosen is arbitrary, the idea of pushing ANOs to operate at a minimum efficiency is most definitely not arbitrary. There is a very clear reason to do so: to increase the contributions to the grant pool, which benefits the entire ecosystem. The choice of a criterion (i.e. efficiency) is also far from arbitrary as well -- there have been a lot of discussions of pushing ANOs to higher efficiency in way or another, as I have mentioned above.
 
Last edited:
I really do not see the issue here. It is the diversity of the point of views which determinates the final standing score.
And honestly, at some point everything is arbitrary. Even a score grid is as Factomize or HashnStore did.

Moreover in your case, even by decreasing to 0% efficiency, I suspect you are likely to keep one of the highest standing score, at least for some time.
 
Please be sure to read post 3 first. I want to make sure we do not get into a potential mood discussion if you are really using multiple factors, but only mentioned efficiency in the vote itself

I think you're missing my point, Niels. If a handful of ANOs decided to set their own criteria regarding efficiency or anything else for that matter (which I once again what to emphasise is fully within their rights) this in itself is not a veto and will have no effect whatsoever on the overall Standing of individual ANOs.
Of course everybody is in their right. Until you get into the situation where every ANO has their own principle point, or for instance people start upping their standing cut off percentages.

Having effective vetos on standing on a single issue without having them disclosed first and especially efficiency which is anchored in our governance is obviously allowed, but also takes away some of the self sovereignty of an ANO IMO.
I already see ANOs coming up with the rule that they will remove standing for any ANO removing standing based on thresholds, without looking at a bigger picture.

As much as I want to see the grantpool being funded more and as much as you obviously are in your right to do this, I also ask to weigh this on a case by case basis and if you feel that a certain percentage should be allocated to the grantpool, why not propose a change in governance?

If you look at the spirit of our governance it has always been the idea to divide standing based on several factors. The definition of standing itself includes reputation. What we are doing here is ascertaining whether there is enough value for money for every ANO here. By not looking at other circumstances you are effectively saying No here IMO, whilst I believe if we totally discarded efficiency and if the standing would not have been binary Factomize would be no 1 by a really big margin compared to all the rest. Now they will probably end up somewhere in the middle, because people weigh something they find important (and again it is), as something that removes your support for an ANO altogether.

Don't get me wrong we can disagree on this and we will probably. Nothing I can do to change it. But IMO the single question here should be:

Would we have gotten better value for money with Factomize at 0% or now at 40% because you had a limit of 10% and Tor had one of 35%, resulting in Factomize ending up somewhere in the middle? Working with people is not something short term, so David not risking loosing more standing over it I can certainly see.
 
Last edited:
We never said that operating at 10% or above efficiency automatically grants you Standing in our books. Our voting indicates so, as we have removed Standing from several ANOs operating at a significantly higher efficiency. We said that operating at below 10% efficiency will automatically mean we remove Standing at this point in time and the two are very different. If an infra ANO goes to 15%, they will be evaluated based on their contributions, same as anyone else operating at >=10% efficiency.
I did change it around on purpose. Simply because you apparently use certain criteria I do not know (well I know the 10% now) as a binary point wrg to standing. So to be really clear above 10% you start measuring contributions?
 
I'm surprised by your comments to be honest. It's as if Factomatic hasn't invested the time to provide each ANO we voted for individual feedback and as if the discussion about a minimum efficiency is happening out of the blue. We've had this discussion multiple times already, both in the form of a minimum efficiency enforced in our governance documents, as well as discussions about switching all ANOs to infra and doing all work via the grant pool.

If it would make people feeling strongly about our vote any better, I'd like to point out that what you describe above as a multi-factor evaluation process is exactly what we're doing, we're just assigning the factor "contributes at least 10% of ANO server revenue to the grant pool" a very large weight. It's not any different to the arbitrary criteria chosen by Factomize (or any other ANO for that matter) and the arbitrary weight they assign to each criterion.
If that is the case it makes more sense. But in the vote you only mentioned the 10%. You literally said you are not supporting ANOs at these levels. If it is part of multiple factors for me it totally makes sense to me.

If we are asked to defend our decision further, we have no problem doing so, however we would like to see the same type of questions asked of all Standing Parties for their criteria and weights and the same level of in-depth answers first, before we can justify allocating more time to answer queries directed towards our choice of factors.
I do. This one stands out because according to the text in the vote itself the efficiency was the only factor. I did ask Tor for instance the same questions.
 
I really do not see the issue here. It is the diversity of the point of views which determinates the final standing score.
And honestly, at some point everything is arbitrary. Even a score grid is as Factomize or HashnStore did.

Moreover in your case, even by decreasing to 0% efficiency, I suspect you are likely to keep one of the highest standing score, at least for some time.
I am pretty sure they don't. I am also very very worried for negative feedback loops as soon as parties start giving 100% weight against something that is part of our current governance (efficiency is self determined by ANOs). Without looking at circumstances and enforcing minimum efficiencies on others and making that the deal breaker, I think one could even make an argument you are not following governance. Would be interesting to have our LRWG look into that.
 

Valentin Ganev

Factomatic
I did change it around on purpose. Simply because you apparently use certain criteria I do not know (well I know the 10% now) as a binary point wrg to standing. So to be really clear above 10% you start measuring contributions?
If that is the case it makes more sense. But in the vote you only mentioned the 10%. You literally said you are not supporting ANOs at these levels. If it is part of multiple factors for me it totally makes sense to me.
Yes, we only start measuring contributions above a 10% efficiency. Having above 10% efficiency definitely does not constitute automatic Standing in our books and we have in fact removed Standing from several ANOs operating at higher efficiency, due to different reasons. Having below 10% efficiency, results in automatic No Standing, as we believe every ANO should be doing their fair share of contributions to the grant pool, regardless of ANO contributions.
 
Last edited:
You are viewing an older update. There is a newer update available.
Top