Proposal to allow ANOs to resign and receive 5,000 FCT

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining Canonical Ledgers Canonical Ledgers Consensus Networks Consensus Networks CryptoLogic CryptoLogic Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow David Chapman De Facto De Facto Factable Solutions Factable Solutions Factom Inc Factom Inc Factomatic Factomatic Factomize Factomize Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashQuark HashnStore HashnStore Kompendium Kompendium LayerTech LayerTech Luciap Luciap Matters Matters PrestigeIT PrestigeIT RewardChain RewardChain Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed Multicoin Capital Multicoin Capital

Should ANOs be allowed to resign and receive 5,000 FCT severance next grant round?

Have not voted

Authority Nodes DBGrow DBGrow Luciap Luciap VBIF VBIF

  • Total voters
  • Poll closed .
We need to act proactively and allow the Factom Protocol to weather the current health and economic issues faced by the world and come out stronger on the other side. I propose the following if this measure passes with 60%:

1. If this measure passes, a thread will be created that allows ANOs to resign in.

2. From the time of the passage of this measure, ANOs will have 10 days to resign. Their resignation will be effective immediately and they will work with the Core Committee to wind down their servers in an orderly fashion.

3. If the ANO resigns in that thread, then next grant round, they are automatically provided 5,000 FCT from the grant pool.

For most ANOs, that 5,000 FCT would be 5-7 months worth of FCT. This allows them to move on with some money in their pocket and in a respectable manner. It also allows the Protocol to operate in a lean manner and come out stronger financially on the other side.

This is not a Major Discussion as that requires inviting Guides. I will create a poll for ANOs after 8 days (on the 22nd) of discussion as if this were a Major Discussion.

Thank you.
I’ve encouraged a community buy-out option in the past and continue to believe this type of approach would provide the community longterm value.

I don't think I support a fixed FCT buyout quantity. I think an ANO should be free to set their own buyout number, which could be well above or below 5,000 FCT Depending on $\FCT rates at the time.
Also, I don’t think an ANO nor the community should have to wait for the next grant round, and community buy outs should be transacted ASAP.

Community buyouts would provide great longterm value to the community IMO. With some adjustments, this would have our support.
Last edited:
I am not sure if I would support it, but I am not strongly opposed. Need to think about this more.

What type of ANO may be interested? IMO it’s suitable for infra only ANOs — I can not imagine that a party with an active development and/or committing other types of works, that already invested a lot of resources into the protocol, would decide to leave without significant reason. But if there is a significant reason to leave — this ANO will leave with or without resign bonus, so it makes no sense for paying this (considering interests of the protocol).


Crypto Logic
We will consider taking such severance package. It make sense from business perspective considering our high efficiency as it will enable us to recoupp investment over shorter time perspective with lower risk and costs.

If it helps protocol with saving costs medium term maybe good for both protocol and companies taking deal?
I have been giving this careful thought. If the take-up rate is at all significant then I believe it might be an excellent way to reset. I think a lot of people are quite fatigued at this point. Offering those fatigued teams an exit incentive and freeing up space for new blood is probably a very good idea.
My gut reaction is: If people are fatigued (understandable), they should quit or see out any infrastructure contracts they have.

The only reason to offer severance is to get out an employment contract or because we have better parties waiting to step in. Neither of which are true.

At the least, this should be reduced to 2-3000 FCT following a vote to approve severance to avoid gaming.

Preferably we’re strong enough to chop under-performers through the standing system.

If an ANO is really not contributing to the extent we’d rather pay them severance - they should be demoted through loss of standing.

I will think about it more.
Preferably we’re strong enough to chop under-performers through the standing system.

If an ANO is really not contributing to the extent we’d rather pay them severance - they should be demoted through loss of standing.
100% Agree. I'd argue an inability to do this is akin to a complete failure in our governance model. If that's the case, then we might as well get rid of the idea of "standing" entirely, which means entirely reworking Governance. We can't have it both ways.
I believe our governance standing is a 3 months process between the moment someone loses standing and is kicked out. Factor in the time required for standing parties to decide to remove standing so that said ANO drop below 40% threshold and I think 5 000 FCT is "cheap" vs what it could cost the system.

With this severance package, you allow these ANOs to quit in good terms with the protocol without having to reach consensus and infighting.

I think it is a good idea, but my opinion is that at this time the price have been suppressed long enough that if anyone wanted to quit, they would have done so already.
If the take up rate is even slightly significant there'd be no grant pool left to fund it. There's only ~27,000 FCT in there right now.

Have no problems with the proposal but the practicalities involved could be a problem.

There's usually about 110k FCTs per grant round. If the majority of ANOs take up the offer the Grant pool will get depleted, but if that many ANOs want to leave there are other issues.
Last edited:
Do agree with the last point, if that many go it's not necessarily a positive.

Regarding the amount available, a solid chunk of the pool is somewhat pre-spent (for lack of a better word there).

Again not against the proposal at all, simply saying that if 6 ANO's took the offer today, it would have to be some sort of delayed payment mechanism. Perhaps it should be a delayed payout for all regardless to avoid turbulence.


Not really sure will support it or not yet. What we need to make clearly is that the reason behind this initiative. If we think some ANOs do not contribute a lot, alternatively we can remove standing for them and then they will be force to leave when their support is lower than 40% which seems more reasonable. On the other hand, if this severance aims to increase the system efficiency through removing the ANOs quickly, i think it will make sense to some extent then. So i think we need take more time to figure it out what benefits we really can get from this initiative.
I believe without strict details and modified governance, this is another compelling but ambiguous initiative.

Not really for or against, but yes would be a commitment to work through all the details in another round of votes and discussions when we are already going down that road with the removal of guides.

I believe we need a full proposal with document modifications and all details mapped out.

Factom Inc will vote no.
  • Like
Reactions: WB