Question for RewardChain from Niels Klomp


Factomize Bot

@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?

Alistair McLeay

1. Which would we like to see? Ultimately governments, large companies, and NGOs. In the meantime, high-quality startup teams.

2. We don't believe we do. The amount of overlapping work right now where 27 ANO's all track the details of each others contributions is distracting and inefficient. This wasted overlapping work will get exponentially worse as we add people to the Auth Set. We have too much politics in discussions. We have a lack of clear leadership.

3. We are in favor of the idea of removing the Guide role as it doesn't seem to be working anymore. We are very interested in the idea of token holders being standing parties but we are concerned about making more work for everyone, increasing politics, and decreasing efficiency. We are worried it may effectively give ANO's more people to directly report to (on top of the 26 other ANO's) and will add more subjectivity to evaluating ANO's, inviting more arguing and less actual work getting done.

4. As above we need clearer leadership I think. Our current system is so time-consuming and is inefficient with lots of overlapping work. There is so much in-fighting that occurs (and makes us look unprofessional). There is also a major lack of clarity around expectations creating friction to decisions getting made.

5. We can do our best but there are likely things that we struggle to do the due diligence on (e.g. a technical tool that is very specialized and complex that would take a long time to properly assess). Are we "qualified"—yes, I think being an ANO makes you qualified technically. Do we have the necessary expertise and time to assess every vote in full detail, probably not, and I doubt any ANOs do.

6. Yes, but they likely won't. We had a deal lined up that was leading to use by a major company and it fell through due to a multi-day network stall. We need to prove the network won't do this again (or if it does that its not a major problem). We also need to improve governance to be more seamless and more professional. We believe some discourse between ANO's is very unprofessional currently. We also need more clarity in general for this to happen—clarity in expectations, roles, future direction etc.

7. Yes but it certainly could be made easier. A higher FCT price that was stable would help. More usage would help. More professionalism, stability, and efficiency would help.

8. Given the combination of the FCT price and our efficiency, we believe we are doing everything reasonable within our power to address our concerns above.