Process Discussion New Exchange committee formation

Hi current/former Exchange Committee members and other interested parties. As people are probably aware, with the ratification of Document 006 (https://factomize.com/forums/documents/doc-006-working-group-committee-framework.117/) all current working groups and committees need to be disbanded as new committees and working groups need to be formed according to the rules set out in Doc 006.

Instructions on the requirements are to be found in https://docs.google.com/document/d/10vURj3WX8sTrLRrcW8rTMq-Sad0I_k0SElW9Yle3ZYk/edit
The future core committee has already had a similar thread as this one at https://factomize.com/forums/threads/core-committee-formation.2615/
Which resulted in this document for your inspiration: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GImlA5o-Uo4JZR8TPbd4dhtCvDWchxGKk2jEtwE7_a4/edit


I am tagging current members to kickstart discussion. This thread is not a formal thread. It is just meant to discuss and come up with a draft charter and people signaling their interest in joining, before going down the formal route as set out in Doc 006. One of the first things people need to discuss whether there is a need for a future Exchange committee or workgroup.

@Julian Fletcher-Taylor @Ben Sparango @Mark Thorsen @Samuel Vanderwaal @Benjamin Dufty @Brian Deery @Andrew @Devon Katz
 
I'm interested in joining, provided that there are actually things to do.

My motivation:
1. I've been reasonably vocal about exchange listings and what would (and wouldn't) constitute a worthwhile pursuit.
2. Over the years I've developed a fair understanding of exchange workings and how the exchange space has been evolving.
3. Factom being a 'small' and vulnerable protocol means it's overly exposed to what I'd like to call exchange tourist traps. It's important that a reformed committee has the necessary experience to identify these and reach decisions accordingly.

Could existing members please:
1. List the achievements of the exchange committee versus funds spent.
2. State if we still need this committee. I understand a third party is doing most of the work.
2. State if a reformed exchange committee still needs as many members as it does now.
3. State if you believe the committee has been run effectively, and if not, what should change.


As for the charter, I'd request that it includes two things:

1. Removal for inactivity similar to the core committee charter. That's self-explanatory.
2. For reasons of impartiality, restrict membership to one representative per ANO. I'm not saying current membership is a big issue, but there is nothing written that protects a balanced representation of interested parties.
 
I am interested to join.

In past 3 months:
1) I actively explored listing opportunities for Factom
2) I became PegNet Telegram group admin and processed some incoming requests from exchanges about listings

Due to private nature of such activities/conversations, I can not share a lot of details of what has been done, but we talked a lot with @Julian Fletcher-Taylor and I think he can give recommendation/feedback, if anyone needs it :)
 
Thanks for the reminder Niels.

Some answers to the questions I raised above would be nice, particularly on what has been spent versus what has been achieved.

I'd like to know if there's a strategy, or if the exchange commitee has simply been too trusting in the third party negotiator on the value of these recent listings.

My opinion on their value (Bilaxy, Hotbit) can be read in the attached file, as it's too large for a post.
 

Attachments

Hi,

I do believe that a new committee should be formed. As this is a group that will be receiving grants it makes sense to introduce that level of formality over a working group.

Some considerations to make with this new committee:

- Who will receive grant funds

- Transitioning over remaining funds to this new person/entity

- The current gameplan is to work closely with the initiative for Pegnet listings. We are working with the same firm for both. This synergy makes sense.

- Committee should have some rules for handling information received as part of the committee, exchanges will often require non disclosure agreements.

- We should move on initiating setup of this committee, so that we may have the option to put in a grant in the upcoming round.

- Receipt, to the extent we decide is necessary, of previous information held by the exchange committee.

I'm willing to put together a charter asap.
 
I'm interested in joining, provided that there are actually things to do.

My motivation:
1. I've been reasonably vocal about exchange listings and what would (and wouldn't) constitute a worthwhile pursuit.
2. Over the years I've developed a fair understanding of exchange workings and how the exchange space has been evolving.
3. Factom being a 'small' and vulnerable protocol means it's overly exposed to what I'd like to call exchange tourist traps. It's important that a reformed committee has the necessary experience to identify these and reach decisions accordingly.

Could existing members please:
1. List the achievements of the exchange committee versus funds spent.
2. State if we still need this committee. I understand a third party is doing most of the work.
2. State if a reformed exchange committee still needs as many members as it does now.
3. State if you believe the committee has been run effectively, and if not, what should change.


As for the charter, I'd request that it includes two things:

1. Removal for inactivity similar to the core committee charter. That's self-explanatory.
2. For reasons of impartiality, restrict membership to one representative per ANO. I'm not saying current membership is a big issue, but there is nothing written that protects a balanced representation of interested parties.
Thanks for the detailed thoughts as well as the exchange analysis.

Some answers to these questions:

1.
-Prepared tons of documentation and info needed by exchanges, in coordination with the legal research working group.
- Listings on a number of exchanges, though fairly argued not entirely impactful listings.
- Listing on VCC bringing back Bittrex orderbook to United States
- Contact, discussions, and form submissions with basically every large exchange
- A number of current leads and actions in various levels of completion
- Ongoing close work with the firm working on listings, as well as with the pegnet listing efforts

2. I believe a committee is a reasonable way to approach this, as a group still needs to accept grants, coordinate information with the firm such as letters, network analysis, etc. A lot of the work is coming from the firm, but some stuff like VCC was handled entirely by the exchange committee.

2. No, I dont think theres any required number of people for the committee. Having a few people to take calls, make notes, etc is helpful.

3. I do. Given the difficulty and complexity of the task, and the tremendous effort that everyone involved has put in, I cannot really see it having been operated more successfully. But of course we are also heavily bounded by funds, and by connections. Individuals with better connections, and having more funds to act on the connections we do have, would really make the difference.

For charter:

1. Agreed. This should happen faster.

2. I'm not positive on the value added of this, and also an acception should be made as DBGrow hosts the GSuite for the exchange committee and Devon from DBGrow has admin access, and I think its a given that anyone who isn't part of the committee should not have access to exchange committee correspondence.


Really great investigation and write up of Bilaxy/Hotbit. I think we should have a more in depth discussion on this, and discussion on where to draw the line for value in pursuing an exchange listing. Unfortunately its no surprise that the exchanges we list at are not replacing a listing we could have had at a larger exchange. There are so many considerations, exchange requirements, fee requirements, if the exchange uses a custody service like Bitgo what do they require and cost to integrate, etc. The downside of listings is the time and money spent pursing, and this should be further discussed. You seem like you would be valuable for that conversation.
 
The VCC listing to get back on Bittrex order books is for sure the most important contribution to date. At least in terms of visible results.

Who will receive grant funds
What's the current structure? The committee has received funds before so I don't see why that should change unless said person/entity is no longer involved.

I'm not positive on the value added of this, and also an acception should be made as DBGrow hosts the GSuite for the exchange committee and Devon from DBGrow has admin access, and I think its a given that anyone who isn't part of the committee should not have access to exchange committee correspondence.
Yeah. Like I said, not a big issue at all in terms of current membership. But let's at least add a clause along the lines of "no single entity shall represent more than 50% of the total committee seats".
 
@Julian Fletcher-Taylor
I respectfully disagree about the need for a committee here, as it is needless overhead. As you stated, a third party is largely running point on exchange listings. The Exchange Committee is simply providing support. Therefore, I do not see the need to have to deal with the time suck of being a committee. Everyone should give this a read again to refresh themselves with all the added responsibilities that comes along with being a Committeee:

https://factomize.com/forums/documents/doc-006-working-group-committee-framework.117/

As far as applying for grants: If a committee existed, an ANO would still be responsible for receiving the grant funds. So, no different than if this were a Working Group. At the end of the day, you are trusting that ANO to spend the funds appropriately.

As a protocol, we spend WAY too much time on bureaucracy. We HAVE to get away from us.

This is a good place to start.
 
Agreed on there being too much bureaucracy, but I'm not sure if the exchange committee is the place to remove it.

Exchanges prefer an established point of contact. Ironically enough for the crypto space, some will ask to speak to a project's CEO. According to Doc 006, committees have a more formal role and are recognized by the Standing Parties, which should give them extra credibility over working groups as a point of contact for exchanges.

I'll let @Julian Fletcher-Taylor comment on how that's worked out in practice, as I obviously don't know, but even if the third party has been handling the majority of communication, who's to say that third party will still be here in a month?

As for the added responsibilities, I'm not seeing anything out of the ordinary. This is just a hectic time after the recent Doc 006 ratification, so yes there will be voting required for formation and chairman appointments. I doubt you'll see many more votes afterwards.

There's also the reporting cadence for committees, but for the exchange committee particularly I can't see that being a heavy burden as there isn't much that can be shared publically.
 
Exchanges prefer an established point of contact.
Agree, and it has largely been the third party mentioned above and will continue to be so.

Note: @Julian Fletcher-Taylor, the current exchange chair, has been working his ass off for the protocol, probably harder than just about anyone. However, it took 10 days to get a response from him since this thread's creation. Let that sink in. Do we really want to add more bureaucracy when we can barely get a response from him as well as the other people currently listed as exchange members? Now consider the protocol's track record of Committees to date. It's largely been disastrous. What makes us think that just because we ratify a document that this will somehow change things?

Furthermore, by way of background, the LRWG has been working a lot on exchange-related matters the past 5-6 months. In fact, much of the documentation created was actually lead by the LRWG, not the Exchange Committee.

Because of the LRWG's role, I have been personally sitting in on Exchange meeting weekly calls for the last two months

1. Multiple times, there has been no one from the Exchange Committee on this call. Yep, no one. It's me, Factom Inc, and the third-party. This is not a shot against anyone, especially Julian. Based-on what I know, he has been prioritizing properly (working on closing business deals is more important than making an Exchange Committee call).

2. By default, I have had to take up the role of secretary, documenting where we are with each potential exchange.

3. Much of the time, there is not a ton to do on our end. So, I am not even really sure what the members of this new Exchange Committee/Working Group would even do.

In "theory," yes, this would be a committee. But, it is not worth the added bureaucracy. In "reality," people are extremely pressed for time and there are more important things to do spend time abiding by the Committee framework. There is no reason to not keep things simple and just make this a Working Group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WB
Alright, everyone. I am confirming then that the Exchange "Committee" will move forward as a working group rather than a committee. If that is the case, who would like to participate in this working group going forward?

@WB @Anton Ilzheev @Julian Fletcher-Taylor @Matt Osborne

My present understanding is that the four (4) tagged individuals above are interested in remaining in the Exchange working group, but if that has changed or is not the case, please let me know.

Is anyone else interested in joining or know of anyone interested in joining?
 
Top