Q3 2019 Report

You are viewing an older update. There is a newer update available.
Previous Update: Q3 2019 Report
Hello everyone!
There is De Facto's quarterly report for Q3 2019.

--

Factom World

We have developed and launched Factom Application Hub — Factom World. In addition to the portal, we have started and keep maintaining the @FactomWorld Twitter account.

We have worked with multiple entities: Factom Inc, Factoshi, Skaffolder, Bedrock Solutions, Federate This, TFA — to bring and publish their products into Factom World.

--

Factom® PRO
We launched our Blockchain-as-a-Service platform — Factom® PRO.
We have got about 15 publications in different media and got into Blockfolio Weekly Newsletter.

Factom® PRO: https://factom.pro
API documentation: https://docs.factom.pro
4 SDKs (1 ready, 3 currently in work): https://github.com/factompro

--

Factom Developer Guides

In addition to our BaaS platform, we launched Factom Developer Guides:
https://factom.pro/guides

In developer guides, that are available in English and will be also available Russian (Q4 2019), we are going to learn developers about Factom data structures and technologies, that will be available very soon (Decentralized Identities, Fungible and non-fungible Tokens, Smart Contracts, etc).

--

Business development

We work with sales partner in Russia and we have pitched Factom to several large entities and SaaS providers. Currently, there are no agreements we may publicly share, but some activities may get traction in Q4.

  • Bahrain’s General Directorate of Traffic (GDT)
    We have pitched Factom technology and our platform to the Russian SaaS company and applied for Bahrain's GDT's RFP of CRM development with DLT integrated into it.

  • MTS
    We have pitched Factom® PRO and Factom technology to the IoT department of Russian largest mobile network provider MTS (NYSE: MBT).

  • X5 Retail Group
    We have applied for the X5 retail group (LSE: FIVE) RFP of blockchain-enabled supply chain software.
Also, right now we work on PoCs with several SaaS providers.
We won't share any names until integrations go live for obvious reasons.

--

Factom Open API

We have released two major (1.1.0 & 1.2.0) and a bunch of minor versions of Factom Open API.
Version 1.1.0 brings Admin API and UI, and version 1.2.0 brings Callbacks.
We aim to continue the development of Factom Open API and add new important features till the end of the year.

--

Pegnet
  1. We have participated as early miner, testing mining software
  2. We have designed and developed an adaptive pegnet.org landing page, subsidizing 100% of development costs (i.e. free of charge).
--

Testnet
  1. We helped several parties with setup their testnet nodes
  2. We continue to host and maintain fct.tools — Factom Testnet Monitoring
  3. We developed fct.tools API and provided it to @Paul Bernier's Chocablock
--

Open Node
  1. We continue to maintain Factom Open Node load balancer with Bedrock Solutions
  2. We continue providing Singapore factomd node for Factom Open Node pool — free of charge
--

Core development
  1. Our pull request for the addition of entry commit date into factomd API was successfully merged and will appear in the next factomd release:
    https://github.com/FactomProject/factomd/pull/815
  2. We explored KeyBase integration for Decentralized Identities on Factom, contacted KeyBase, and have started writing the specification for this integration.
  3. We started working on the DID Golang lib (grant project, will apply for backpay grant in the next grant round).
--

Rebrand Working Group
De Facto actively participates in the Rebrand Working Group discussions, meetings and calls.

--

Website Committee
Improved some sections on https://docs.factomprotocol.org

--

Exchange Committee
  • Explored some possible listing options on BTI verified exchanges via Russian partner
  • Explored some popular DEXs in order to integrate Factom there
  • Worked through an option of bringing liquidity to PegNet (will be announced soon)
  • Applied for Exchange Committee
--

Entry Credits
Our Entry Credit store created more than 200,000 ECs for PegNet miners.

--

We are going to update our efficiency to 10% on October, 1 in order to correctly align efficiency with efficiencies of other ANOs.
 
Last edited:
I completely agree with you. This decision is not about money (obviously an extra $600 does not change anything), it’s about our efforts (most of that not funded with grant money) being aligned with average efficiencies of non-infra ANOs.

I would like to keep our efficiency at 20% or even 35%, if all parties collectively decide to discuss and align their efficiencies with their contribution.
 
If you have any objections why we should not operate at 10%, please share it with me (publicly or privately).
I don't think it's on me to provide objections to ANOs lowering their efficiencies, I think it's on ANOs who are lowering their efficiency to provide the rationale for why they are doing so. Canonical Ledgers has never raised or lowered its efficiency in the 1+ year it has been an ANO despite the fact that the current FCT price is less than half the break even value we quoted in our application. I realize that other ANOs also have lower efficiencies so I'm not meaning to single out De Facto, I just think our efficiency system is broken and I'm wondering now if I should make the case to the Canonical Ledgers stake holders about lowering our efficiency too.
 
I don't think it's on me to provide objections to ANOs lowering their efficiencies
Sam, it's not about lowering or increasing, it's about fair alignment of ANOs contributions (excluding grants and other compensations) with their efficiencies.
Currently I feel, that our contributions are closer to contributions of parties operating at 0-10%, rather than 20-25%.
If you feel that CL contributions are not aligned with contributions of other 50% ANOs, then you probably should lower it.

IMO the ecosystem health is important and we should be very careful with changing efficiencies.
Obviously, at current FCT price many contributions (not only ours) will not be covered even with 0% efficiency.
We can operate at 20, or 25%, or 35%, providing less efforts, but would it be good for ecosystem? Personally I don't think so.

If parties decides to fix efficiency issue, De Facto will be the first one who will increase efficiency.
 
Last edited:
You are viewing an older update. There is a newer update available.
Top