Ratified Single-Use -- ANO Round 3 -- Ratification Document

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining Brian Deery BuildingIM BuildingIM Canonical Ledgers Canonical Ledgers CryptoLogic CryptoLogic Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow De Facto De Facto Factom Inc Factom Inc Factomatic Factomatic Factomize Factomize Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashnStore HashnStore Julian Fletcher-Taylor LayerTech LayerTech Luciap Luciap Matters Matters Multicoin Capital Multicoin Capital Nic R Niels Klomp PrestigeIT PrestigeIT Quintilian RewardChain RewardChain Samuel Vanderwaal Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed None

Should the document be ratified or amended as specified by the thread type?

Have not voted

Authority Nodes De Facto De Facto

  • Total voters
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Not open for further replies.
Suggestions for changes to application questions:

Please state the number of people in company
Change to:
Please state the number of people in your company who will be working on the Factom Protocol.
Reason: We may start getting companies where everyone isn't dedicated to working on the protocol. And this makes the person specific questions a bit more clear. If a company has 55 employees, who do they list in the person specific questions?

For person 1 please identify the person(first name only) and give a summary of their qualifications, experience and capability. Tell us about the individual, their academic status, where they have worked, positions they have held, what they are good at
Change to:
For person 1 please provide their first and last name and a link to their LinkedIn. If they don't have a LinkedIn, please give a summary of their qualifications, experience and capability. Tell us about the individual, their academic status, where they have worked, positions they have held, and their specialties.
Also, person 2-6 are required answers on the form. I suggest making them optional.

Reason: Using LinkedIn is far more efficient and most people have them. As the Factom Protocol is permissioned, we should know applicants first AND last names. Conducting due diligence is hard enough with first and last names but just first name makes it virtually impossible. I don't care if token holders are anonymous, but we need to be able to conduct proper due diligence on new ANO applicants.

Are you currently a legal structure?
Change to:
Is your company currently incorporated?
Reason: Proper nomenclature.

If you are a legal structure please state what type of structure. e.g. LLC or Ltd Co
Change to:
If you are incorporated, what is your legal structure. e.g. Inc, LLC or Ltd Co
Reason: Proper nomenclature.

If you are not currently a legal structure, do you plan to become one?
This is not mandatory but it is recommended
Change to:
If you are not currently incorporated, when do you plan to do so and what legal structure will you use?
Reason: ANOs should absolutely be companies for a variety of reasons. And we really don't want to have to change our saying to, "ANOs are an international coalition of companies and a guy in California that provide the infrastructure that decentralizes the protocol." This also combines the followup question of what legal structure to use.

Please state current or planned major shareholders but do not include surnames
Change to:
Are any shareholders with a 10% or higher stake in any way involved with an existing Authority Node Operator. If so, please state who and describe the relationship.
Reason: It's not our business who owns the business (and could even result in companies deciding not to apply). Our interest is in conflict of interest and decentralization.

Please describe previous experience you have of running a business or managing large capital projects

Reason: This is redundant as it should be covered by the questions about major players in the company.
Last edited:
I can confirm that we are able to extract the data to a PDF and will post an example here shortly. Thank you to everyone who offered to help here and for Niels confirmation that this approach was used in previous rounds which I remember but did not have access to. I would therefore plan to provide the PDF vesion as a playback to the applicant and hold it/reference it on factomize. I would also provide both the PDF and the spreadsheet to the Standing parties voting so that they have the choice of how to read the information, groupings and guidelines. Then as before they can submit their total score via factomize.
Please link to the ANO Expectations Document as part of the application process.
The link to the ANO expectations document is certainly part of the thinking see this discord chat:

[Cube3] MikeB04/03/2019
@[Factoshi] Alex and @[DeFacto] Anton Ilzheev I have been working on the ANO application & assessment process with @[DBGrow] Nic R of DBGrow. Please see the ANO assessment process - role of Guides and Standing Parties in next round post in Factomise on that subject. As part of this we began to draft some introductory material which we thought would better inform a new applicant. This is attached. Please read and let us know your views. Our primary focus at the moment is on ensuring that we can improve the way we do the assessment in order to amke the very best of those that do apply. However we do want to integrate with the announcement process. Please read and let us know your thoughts.:grinning:
Attachment file type: unknown
13.13 KB
Of course. Did it the last time as well.

To be really clear. If you look back at the previous ANO round, you will see me responding in every single thread with a PDF that contains the questions and answers of the respective participant in a much nicer form.

Example post: https://factomize.com/forums/threads/de-facto.569/#post-3099
Hi Niels, Thank you for this, indeed this is what I remember you doing. Certainly we had planned to feedback to the applicants and will of course now use the PDFs we can generate to do so.
Suggestions for changes to application questions:

Changes to applicant questions. (Edited for simplicity)
Hi David, Thank you for your suggestions. We have changed a number of questions but the ones you have raised were largely carried forward from previously. Given the consensus on these we are happy to make the changes suggested. With regard to the questions about persons 2-6 we had intended to make these optional and will do so. I presume we are in agreement that up to 6 should be sufficient for now?
Can that matrix please be made public?
Hi David, the matrix looks like this:


This currently shows both the final summary results matrix and the method of calculation. We would simplify this to just the coloured summary results matrix for final consumption.

I have given you access to this. For anyone else that needs access please provide your e-mail address or request by clicking on the above or pasting it into your browser.

By the way this has been made public in the ANO Round 3 ratification document (seen here) as introduced by Nic at the start of this thread.
I think we are making progress and want to thank everyone that has contributed so far. Given that, we will now:

1. Amend the Doc to reflect the latest changes
2. Revise the working documents and spreadsheets together with the workflow document

We will resubmit these and check that they address everyone's objections, concerns and suggestions.

As a start please find the updated matrix https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...FdpfBN0v4roBntMPx7fcOXE5fk/edit#gid=815263885
showing questions, groupings, markers and score weightings. In it you will mainly find revised questions. This has been shared with those who have requested access previously. For anyone else please ask.

In particular I have included the two questions below which are consistent with our discussion and should enable yes or no answers.

  • Do you agree that by submitting your application, you agree that the information you provide within documents and the thread will be public and will not be modified or removed in the future?
  • Have you read the ANO Expectations Document?
This will now be used to drive the Google Form Questions which I will share shortly.
Here is the amended Google Sheet for showing the responses to enable the Standing Parties to mark them, should they wish to do so using a Google Sheet.
Please ignore the first tab, it is for collecting data. The ones to focus on are tabs 1-10 for different applicants. Tab 1 has some dummy data for now.
Please don't think I've forgotten the PDF extracts they are next, promise.
Last edited:
With apologies for the delay here is the amended Google Sheet for showing the responses to enable the Guides and Test Admin to mark them, should they wish to do so using a Google Sheet.
Please ignore the first tab, it is for collecting data. The ones to focus on are tabs 1-10 for different applicants. Tabs 1-3 have some dummy data for now.

The PDF extracts for 3 dummy applicants are here.

These are the example extracts which have come through the whole process (one is a duplicate) and as such do not have a lot of text/data. My tests of this extraction tool with more text showed that it handled long text well. Please have look and give me your views.
Should you so wish there is no reason why you cannot test this more thoroughly by submitting Google Form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1...KfcjOAG5bPeqz9qdswqZbKncGI3Tv6bQ/formResponse

The Google Sheet summaries should come through automatically, enabling you to see them straight away whereas the PDF extract requires me to run a macro.

Please let me know if the Guides and Test Admin require a PDF extract.

The other steps in the process are as before, namely voting via factomize and pulling the resultant summary votes into the final spreadsheet which is then ranked to indicate the top performing applicants.
Last edited:
Looking at the extracts, a lot of the questions / answers are missing. Is that simply because they weren't filled out?
Hi David, thank you for your question.

Yes, a lot were not completely filled out. I effectively got though the form as quickly as possible by completing all the mandatory questions. The ones empty were the optional ones. This is mainly because I was trying to quickly establish whether things were working or not. I am confident that they are.

If you want to, please have a go at completing an application form, you should be able to see it go through most of the process.
Last edited:
Hi everyone,

These are the Google Doc/Sheet Shareable Links

Voting Matrix and questions (This sets the scene in terms of groups, questions, mark weighting)

Factom Protocol ANO Applicant Questions (This is the form)

Extract spreadsheet -Standing Parties (This is the output as a spreadsheet showing all the questions and applicant answers by group)

Extract spreadsheet -Guides (This is the output as a spreadsheet showing all the questions and applicant answers by group)

Extract PDFs 1 per applicant (This is the output as a PDF showing questions and answers which should be easier to read)



I'd like to apologise for anyone that has found it difficult to view these because the links were not right. (It looked OK at my end!)

I'd also like to thank those that have reviewed the work so far and posted comments and questions. The end result is so much better for the challenges you have raised. So by all means keep testing and asking . (Please also bear in mind that with our deadline approaching it will not be easy to make major changes.:))
Thank you for all the incredible effort that went into revamping this.

I have one comment but it is not a dealbreaker. I'm not terribly happy about baking linkedin into the application process, but having the qualifications as an alternative is an OK bypass.

I'm excited to start adding more people to help expand the ecosystem and add value to the protocol.


Factomize Bot
The final poll is available for Guides to vote on now for 3 days. If Guides pass the vote with 4 "Yes" votes then ANOs will be able to vote. If Guides fail to pass, there will be no further action.
Not open for further replies.