Question for Consensus Networks from Niels Klomp


Factomize Bot
@Consensus Networks,

@Niels Klomp asked the following question:

As BIF we are asking all ANOs these questions.

  1. What type of parties would you see the protocol attract as users?
  2. Do you believe current governance to accommodate that?
  3. What is your take on current standing parties and types? Anything needing to change?
  4. Can you mention anything about decisiveness and decision making as well as direction?
  5. Do you believe you are qualified to vote on every single thing?
  6. Do you believe large institutions and governments could use the protocol with current governance as is?
  7. Do you believe parties can make long term commitments towards the protocol at this time?
  8. Do you believe you are doing everything in your power to address any concerns about the above?
Hi Niels:

1. The parties we see adopting Factom are those working in regulated industries such as government, healthcare, and law.
2. We do not think that current governance supports production level adoption of mainnet Factom at this time, however, we are still early and those aforementioned users understand this and are still in conceptual stages themselves.
3. I think we have a lot of earnest and hardworking standing parties. One of my fears is that we sometimes work too hard in the wrong places. Current ANOs are on the front lines of new technology, working with daily with stuff that most people won't get for years - they should be finding opportunities for funding and work outside of direct incentives provided by the protocol. It may be impostor syndrome, but every ANO should be capable of expanding operations with enterprise clients outside of just running a node. I know that many are, but I think others are holding out hoping for another bull run.
4. Decision making is tough in any committee, dictatorships are better in this regard. I believe this will be something we will constantly need to work at to maintain efficiency, but it will always be am issue.
5. As a new ANO, we sometimes feel that we are not qualified in certain areas - especially in the recent guide issues where there are many factors and decisions made before we were involved in the protocol. We also feel that many of the market discussions/decisions are somewhat impossible to be qualified for. We do not fully understand the complexities surrounding securities, liquidity, and supply side economics. While we 'get it' at a level, these are complex things that are more inclined to let play out as the market works.
6. Similar to 2, but again we are still early as are the potential government clients we've talked to so this isn't an issue now and we can work to fix it.
7. We have made a long term commitment to the protocol so believe it is certainly possible to do, I think #3 speaks to this.
8. I do think there are things to be fixed in governance. I say this based on observed friction in the protocol not because of any specific incident in mind. Maybe this friction is the normal (in my experience there is always some sort of friction), but overall governance will need to be totally automated or more centralized to function more efficiently. Both will be difficult to do and have their own problems. Centralization is likely a no go for so many reasons. Complete automation, besides the technical challenge, will present a new set of challenges that I don't think we can predict at this time since there is no (that I know of) truly digital governance system anywhere in the world.