Proposed Factom Objectives

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 Jason Gregoire Kompendium Kompendium Luciap Luciap PrestigeIT PrestigeIT Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed HashQuark

Should we adopt the presented Factom Objectives (with amendments) and work towards its execution?


Have not voted

Authority Nodes DBGrow DBGrow

  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.
This a major timed discussion and vote on proposed the below Factom Objectives document.

The Factom Objectives proposal can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DHBG5P5QjlIsUI0T1dr3f_kVKJKFsd_0Zd8FScPAgZo/edit?usp=sharing

Factom Objectives seeks to identify technical and non-technical objectives for the community to focus in order to align efforts on:
1) getting our house in order, and
2) setting the future conditions to refine and further focus community objectives around use cases to aggressively pursue commercial viability and community inclusivity.

If adopted, the community should annually modify, continue, add, or remove objectives based on community priorities and progress accomplished towards objectives for the preceding year.

By design Factom Objectives is not a finished or static document, it is a living, evolving document to be revised and validated annually by the standing parties. Neither is it a substitute for effective day-to-day decision making. The document itself doesn’t inherently contain a hierarchy, prioritization, or chronology. Decisions on resource allocation, which lie with those standing parties charged with its execution, will be politically influenced, and as such are outside the scope of this document. So while Factom Objectives provides targeted goals of the community it does not rigidly commit the community in regards to funding or prioritization.

Factom Objectives will provide standing parties a tool to communicate externally to industry and token holders as well as better enable teams to communicate and organize to cooperatively work towards core goals.

Changes from the previously presented draft are:
  • The proposal has been significantly simplified
  • All potentially controversial content has been removed to be apolitical, and broaden appeal
  • There is no chronology and the previous ERA organization has been removed
  • The clustering of effort has been clarified in a restructured diagram (below)
The purpose of this discussion is to enable the community to amend the Factom Objectives document as necessary and Standing Parties are encouraged to propose such amendments or additions prior to the vote.

The purpose of the vote is to decide on the adoption of Factom Objectives and to work towards its execution.

Factom Objectives Diagram V3.2.jpg
 
Last edited:

Chappie

Factomize Bot
This thread is a Major Timed Discussion and I am designed to help facilitate efficient communication.

Only ANOs may take part in this discussion and vote. Unless this discussion is ended early or extended, it will end in 8 days after which a vote may take place. After 18 hours from the start of the thread or any point up until 24 hours are left in the discussion, you can make a motion to end the discussion immediately or extend the discussion beyond it's initial time frame by selecting the pertinent button at the top of this thread. If someone "seconds" your motion, a poll will take place and if a majority of voters vote yes by the time the discussion is scheduled to end, the time period will be extended for 72 hours.
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
We are now 18 hours into the discussion. You may now make a motion to extend this Major Discussion by an additional 72 hours or end this conversation by selecting the pertinent button at the top of this thread. This option will end when there are 24 hours left in the discussion.
 
I don't understand why this is being put forward when we have the following occurring:

(1) The Director proposal imminent
(2) The GWG attempting to narrow down the Governance approach the community wants, most likely to introduce another proposal.

The Governance approach the standing parties decide upon could largely dictate the roadmap. Therefore, this proposal is premature and should be pulled.

As such, we'll be voting "No" on this proposal at this point in time.
 
I do think too this is positive. It simply states what we are currently working on and starts to showcase our ambition as a protocol. This is a first good iteration to initiate a positive dynamic.

I do not see how that could be bad. Any new leadership structure could help refine/correct/complete this.

We will be voting "Yes" as it is.
 
I don't understand why this is being put forward ...

Hi Matt,
As stated, this is a proposed community roadmap for 2021. It is agnostic to whatever the community decides it wants its governance model to be and is meant to be apolitical. Next year will be a new iteration with further refinement of goals and focus.

Whether it be a council or director, by the time a more efficient system is effectively put in place for day-to-day management, they will be well positioned to manage and ensure proper coordination is occurring across the various listed 2021 roadmap objectives teams are presently working on.

Also, if you take the time to review the proposed 2021 Roadmap, you’ll see it is about really getting everything we need in place to start anew and on the right foot - it is a plan (based on feedback across the community) to get our house in order - something that we need to do if we want to be in position to truly define our place in the greater blockchain industry.

This road map give the community an overview of what we need to do to get our house back in order. This, with the new token model and refinements to governance in place, will put the community in a great place this fall to take stock of where we are as a project and lgauge how best to proceed in its 2022 roadmap.

If there is something you want to add to the 2021 roadmap, we please post it, and we’ll get it added.
 
At the ANO Summit almost three years ago, we passed a simplified roadmap that we were unable to execute even with Guides at the helm and more resources.

This is a much more complex roadmap while the protocol is in a much worse state.

So, I fail to see how we can even achieve this proposed roadmap. Happy to play along though.

@Jason Gregoire
Since you're proposing the roadmap, I'll assume you also have a plan on how this can actually be implemented. Can you please share? Maybe break it down based-on each potential Governance route the protocol may go? This clearly conflicts with the Director proposal and very well could conflict with the GWG polling going on right now. Maybe also break down how it could be executed in our current state should we stay at a stalemate. Does everyone see the problem now???

Without a viable plan to execute this roadmap, this proposal is nothing but a wishlist that potentially creates future Governance headaches. We're putting the cart before the horse.
 
I also think this is a net positive, and I don't see the need to be an agitator on topics that are meant to inspire some positivity and common ground.

In the event of a leadership stalemate that leaves us without a clear prioritization and hierarchy, we can at least walk away with a community-agreed roadmap along which lines of effort are pursued and backed by new tokenomics.

At the ANO Summit almost three years ago, we passed a simplified roadmap that we were unable to execute even with Guides at the helm and more resources.
If Guides were ever tasked with roadmap execution and strategy, then that's news to me.
 
Shouldn't a roadmap contains targets that are achievable within a time frame? It is like someone made a picollage of all the buzzwords this industry has. This roadmap is overly optimistic, maybe that is how it is supposed to be? Outside of the governance proposals, how many items of this roadmap could be achievable this year? I personnally would just like to see items that are achievable on this roadmap.
 
OUTSIDERS: "Do you have a roadmap?"

US: "Yes, here it is"

OUTSIDERS: "Umm, this doesn't really seem attainable. How do you plan to achieve it?"

US: "We have no viable plan. We also admit that there's zero chance we actually accomplish it. It's really just a wishlist. But, it made us all feel warm and fuzzy, so we passed it."

That pretty much sums it up.
Kinda the story around many projects, like ethereum. Constantly revised roadmaps mostly tracking needed efforts.


We had a long talk once upon a time with Jonathan Mohan about this. You may or may not have been on the call. His observation was to follow ethereum's approach. Identify issues, name a project/effort to deal with them, then continue to work on what you have to work on.

Problems you don't have to solve presntly are not problems really. Just categorize them and work on them by priority.

(Likely butchering what he said, but that's the gist of his view)

Anyway, this is a small thing. A doable thing. A non-controversial thing.

Doing things is good. If we break up the things we need to do into little doable things and do them, we start making progress.
 
Shouldn't a roadmap contains targets that are achievable within a time frame? It is like someone made a picollage of all the buzzwords this industry has. This roadmap is overly optimistic, maybe that is how it is supposed to be?
This does highlight a core problem that the community has faced since its inception. No one has a good understanding of what efforts are targeted or are already underway.

In collecting all the input for the first iteration, we discovered that many great efforts and projects are already being progressed - mostly unknown to the community. This is a big problem and undercuts our productivity & potential teamwork, and prevents us from leveraging a valuable narrative we need to be telling.

So again, you will be excited to learn that many of these objectives are in fact already underway! Some are planned to start this year, some have been started and are progressing, and others are nearly done. The 2021 diagram is meant to simplify and show viewers how many different ongoing and planned efforts fit together.

As with any roadmap, it is very likely that not every objectives will be completed - this proposed roadmap is limited to 2021. It's not so much overly optimistic as realizing that we're way behind on schedule, so many things need to get in place. Additionally, where we have several teams instead of a single centralized foundation progressing the protocol, so many efforts are being worked on in in parallel.

The goal is to advance all items as far as possible and put us back on track for a 2022 use-case focused roadmap to build on all our progress to date. Remember by design the proposed roadmap is not a finished or static document, it is a living, evolving document to be revised and validated annually by the standing parties. Yes, leadership is where you add prioritization to any resource allocation or dynamically add new items to the protocol's 'to-do' list, In the absence of that, this still works and allows us to message our goals for the year, enhance community coordination, promote work completed, and plan for a brighter tomorrow. If you agree on what needs doing, you can get together for a common purpose and get it done. If there is something missing that your team wants added that you or another party is or intends to work on this year for the benefit of the protocol, let us know.
Even if we only complete 80% of objectives this year, progress is good, and that progress can be factored in next year's roadmap.
 
Shouldn't a roadmap contains targets that are achievable within a time frame? It is like someone made a picollage of all the buzzwords this industry has. This roadmap is overly optimistic, maybe that is how it is supposed to be? Outside of the governance proposals, how many items of this roadmap could be achievable this year? I personnally would just like to see items that are achievable on this roadmap.
If we use ethereum or even Bitcoin as a model, they both have had items on their "roadmap" that have been there forever.

If we want to prioritize against a list of tasks, this is a starting point. And it shouldn't be confined to a year, or to what we already are committing resources to do. Having a roadmap is a tool for gathering the resources to achieve goals.
 
Kinda the story around many projects, like ethereum. Constantly revised roadmaps mostly tracking needed efforts.


We had a long talk once upon a time with Jonathan Mohan about this. You may or may not have been on the call. His observation was to follow ethereum's approach. Identify issues, name a project/effort to deal with them, then continue to work on what you have to work on.

Problems you don't have to solve presntly are not problems really. Just categorize them and work on them by priority.

(Likely butchering what he said, but that's the gist of his view)

Anyway, this is a small thing. A doable thing. A non-controversial thing.

Doing things is good. If we break up the things we need to do into little doable things and do them, we start making progress.
There is a difference between overselling when you get a question for a feature with actual people developing and having a wishlist without these resources ;)

If we treat this as a simple Wishlist that is very much open to changes no matter what approach we are going down I am okay with it. If this really is meant for overseeing execution by whatever leadership we come up with then I am very much opposed to it.
 
Over the past three 3-4 years, we've had some challenges with "statements" made by ANO(s) about deliverables, customers, usage, sharding, etc. Some of these statements were true at the time they were spoken. Others were nothing more than wild exaggerations, to put it nicely. Because of this, people lost a ton of faith and trust in Factom. I think we'd all agree that we would like to avoid a repeat of this. This document, if presented as a "roadmap," goes in the "wild exaggeration" category. However, to an outsider, they won't know that this roadmap is not attainable.

Therefore, by calling this document a "roadmap" and presenting it to the public as such, we'd be intentionally deceiving people.

I am not comfortable with that and want no part of it. I think this scenario was simply overlooked and I hope people reconsider the broader ramifications of presenting this as a roadmap. We have a lot of problems, but at least we still have our integrity intact. Let's keep it that way.
 
If we treat this as a simple Wishlist that is very much open to changes no matter what approach we are going down I am okay with it. If this really is meant for overseeing execution by whatever leadership we come up with then I am very much opposed to it.
I view it as the list of issues and features. This provides a framework around picking and choosing what we do with the resources we have. This "roadmap" really is just a taxonomy of efforts to be taken.

I do understand we have had issues in the past. I know this year has seen very little momentum. We need to identify steps we can take and actually take them. Making a list feels like a no brainier that in no way locks us into a particular path.

And we have no integrity issue when we document what we have identified as a set of initiatives, which are documented and considered as we deploy resources.
 
Last edited:
If we treat this as a simple Wishlist that is very much open to changes no matter what approach we are going down I am okay with it.
I imagine it would be. Whether that's through leadership or just the natural evolution of a roadmap as a living document.

Over the past three 3-4 years, we've had some challenges with "statements" made by ANO(s) about deliverables, customers, usage, sharding, etc. Some of these statements were true at the time they were spoken. Others were nothing more than wild exaggerations, to put it nicely. Because of this, people lost a ton of faith and trust in Factom.
We also have dozens of unfinished grants and ANOs at very low efficiencies doing god knows what. But hey, at least we still have our integrity. I get that it's a lot of fun to be negative, and for sure I've been vocal about unfocused work and grants just for the sake of grants, but from what I'm able to see there are only a few parties with completed, dedicated projects on Factom. That includes @PaulSnow @Anton Ilzheev and @Paul B.

We will need a reasonable way to continue engaging the people who've actually tried to do something (and attract new parties!), and do so in a way that is fundable, measurable and achievable. It starts with a list of items to let them work on, which is ultimately what all roadmaps are, and if that evolves into something radically more efficient through leadership and quick, results-based funding, then all the better.
 
Last edited:
This isn't a "roadmap" for 2021. It's a wishlist. This issue is easily rectified by calling it something more accurate than "roadmap."
Your post are becoming hard to take seriously. It is a plan of action; identified key functions and initiatives for the community to cooperate towards in pursuit of success.
If you would be more happy with "Factom Objectives 2021" I'll gladly modify it's title and we can move on.
 
Last edited:
I have to echo the concerns about the 2021 part. The technology sub tree alone is massive, I am afraid that we couldn't achieve 10% of it this year. There is a lot of hard, time consuming stuff there. Each single leaf of the tree could occupy a single person full time. I am pretty certain that the objectives will remain exactly the same in 2022 because we won't have achieved much of all of this, which kind of weaken the value of framing it as a "roadmap for 2021". Also I am afraid the document won't be taken very seriously because it's too stretched (besides Bitcoin or Ethereum I don't think any blockchain would be able to tackle so many things btw).
 
Yeah, although the picture also conflates a lot across differente layers and mentions things that are not necessarily really Factom or on-chain specific, like selective disclosure and ZKP. Sphereon is obviously working on the DIDs (client, server, resolver, registrar), VCs (VC HTTP API, Presentation Exchange, revocation lists, eIDAS bridge), ZKP, Selective Disclosure, Rosetta and using that tech in both our own infra, projects and by our customers.

We are also working with a university in South Korea on applying Factom VC/DID/OpenBadge tech for their courses and which will be used by their university, with partnerships of other universities in the making and relationships in other universities, which fits in the Academia partnerships

So I agree some of it is already more or less in the pipeline. It simply is missing the distinction in layers a bit and the fact that the protocol itself is not really responsible for all of it. So calling it a wishlist/objective document is totally fine with me. Calling it a roadmap to which we will be more or less bound doesn't make sense when we are talking about changed leadership and tokenomics.
 
I think what may help is rephrase this into a soft commitment towards an objective list. And then we get to what @PaulSnow mentioned. A taxonomy of (on-going) efforts that can give extra confidence to grant applications. Overall I don't get a sense that the actual content is disputed heavily. Leadership will always be able to zoom in on certain slices or add new slices altogether.
 
I have to echo the concerns about the 2021 part. The technology sub tree alone is massive, I am afraid that we couldn't achieve 10% of it this year. There is a lot of hard, time consuming stuff there. Each single leaf of the tree could occupy a single person full time. I am pretty certain that the objectives will remain exactly the same in 2022 because we won't have achieved much of all of this, which kind of weaken the value of framing it as a "roadmap for 2021". Also I am afraid the document won't be taken very seriously because it's too stretched (besides Bitcoin or Ethereum I don't think any blockchain would be able to tackle so many things btw).
As has been said above, many of these objectives are in fact already underway: some are planned, some started, and others are nearly soon to be done.

These objectives are obtainable, and most are achievable or at least a significant portion can be completed in 2021. The community just needs to get to work. The below are just things I'm personally aware of or involved in that are underway or planned for 2021. I can circle 3-5 more if I include things some are mentioning they plan to work this year.

With many of these things being pursued, if we organized, we should be able to work towards the few remaining objectives identified but currently without a team(s) around them.
Factom Objectives Diagram V3.1 with coverage.jpg
 
So I agree some of it is already more or less in the pipeline. It simply is missing the distinction in layers a bit and the fact that the protocol itself is not really responsible for all of it.
Yes, proposed objectives are not strictly limited to L1 features, the majority are not.

Yes, many of these things are are already in various phases of work. That is intentional and nested in the intent of 2021 being a housecleaning year of getting the many and diverse efforts underway completed to give the community a broad and attractive base to build from and further enable focus to specific use cases.
 
So calling it a wishlist/objective document is totally fine with me. Calling it a roadmap to which we will be more or less bound doesn't make sense when we are talking about changed leadership and tokenomics.
I view all roadmaps by decentralized projects as "wish lists" when it comes down to it. (Their plans rarely match reality) And a decentralized project has the advantage of including all efforts on the protocol, and people can work on what they want, and hold conflicting priorities... After all, a business is always going to have different priorities from the protocol.

Summary: calling a wishlist a roadmap is consistent with nearly all decentralized projects, and does not have to be limited to what identifiable protocol developers are doing as long as someone is doing development, and locks us into nothing. But it does enumerate the work and features we see as a community to be important.

I don't like wishlist as a term for a more or less official document as I'm not aware of any decentralized project that uses that term. It is a bit needlessly derogatory sounding to me.
 
I do think it’s a positive to put this out there and simply label it “what we’re working towards” or “soft objectives” rather than we “will complete all this things to production grade.”

We can discuss and design all these features in 2021, so that is progress.

Jason, it’s simply describing this a bit differently to what is feasible.
 
I do think it’s a positive to put this out there and simply label it “what we’re working towards” or “soft objectives” rather than we “will complete all this things to production grade.”

We can discuss and design all these features in 2021, so that is progress.

Jason, it’s simply describing this a bit differently to what is feasible.
We can do this and much is already underway.

This plan has huge value in marshaling the community behind a way forward and in our ability to clearly communicate to the community and beyond of all the great things we’re working towards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top