Vote Tor Paulsen Removed Standing for BI Foundation

Keep in mind that standing can easily be reinstated and I even wrote that I would in my explanation for removing standing.

We need some minimum standards for reporting from ANOs even if they are the "rockstars of the community", and a short and sweet update that "things are progressing well, and we are starting a RFP which will hopefully lead to an unpaid POC for some entities. That POC is projected at 50k dollars. It is competing against other parties and after winning it there is no guarantee you get to execute as this large entity even mentions they might not move forward with it." would be kind of sufficient. But there has been nothing for 304 days, with 3 people requesting updates starting November 30th last year. That in my book warrants removing of standing, but I will be more than happy to reapply it after the community gets an update on progress.
Yupz, guess that is where we disagree, since you know about a lot we are doing. Most people see us interacting daily, doing work in committees and workgroups, providing some updates about work we are doing with Digital Asset and for instance the clothing exhibit. Yes we need to be better at reporting. Which we already promised and even made somebody available partly to do.

But then to use it as a weapon whilst at the same time you know we are executing on multiple fronts (and even know more than some others) and the only thing is missing updates in which we will have to be vague, given the size of projects and clients, well I am telling you you are reaching exactly the opposite of what you are trying to do.

And expecting us to disclose info about projects we take risks for as a company is not gonna happen as well. This was just an example (of multiple I have), to show that thinking there is virtually no risk involved is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
And to be totally clear. I am all for the standing system. [...]. But people are lacking perspective and try to objectify everything. You really cannot. You simply cannot measure exact value. That is subjective.
I have said it many times already, but this system is likely going to worsen things and we are seeing some of it now. It don't think it scales well. Having 65 parties, with different core values, expectations, scoring grid voting on opaque and non transparent structure is going to fail. Add politics to that with strategic votes, and what not and we have a recipe for systemic failure(imo).

Before buying into this system, we should have made a code of conduct or guideline as to how to use this system along with repercussion for not using it for its purpose (aka weaponizing it). What some will call weaponizing it right now is simply a standing party voting on an other standing party with different structure/beliefs/core values with a lot of opacity between the two.
 
Yupz, guess that is where we disagree, since you know about a lot we are doing. Most people see us interacting daily, doing work in committees and workgroups, providing some updates about work we are doing with Digital Asset and for instance the clothing exhibit. Yes we need to be better at reporting. Which we already promised and even made somebody available partly to do.

But then to use it as a weapon whilst at the same time you know we are executing on multiple fronts (and even know more than some others) and the only thing is missing updates in which we will have to be vague, given the size of projects and clients, well I am telling you you are reaching exactly the opposite of what you are trying to do.

And expecting us to disclose info about projects we take risks for as a company is not gonna happen as well. This was just an example (of multiple I have), to show that thinking there is virtually no risk involved is nonsense.
I don't understand why you refer to it as a weapon. It's not.

The ANO Standing System is designed to allow the Factom Standing Parties to support or not support an ANO based on metrics of their own choosing. BIF is not meeting the minimum of one of my core metrics (updates via the appropriate channel) and thus I will not support it. It's not gaming or sniping or weaponizing anything of the like; its cause and effect. Alter the cause (provide an update) and get the effect (standing). It's that simple.

Edit: Noticed you posted an update now. Thanks. I'll take a look at it.
 
Tor, I think I have explained in this thread an entity like BIF/Sphereon is not gonna play exactly as you want them to. We have more to consider than only the protocol. At the same time I certainly hope people do not question what we are doing for the protocol.

Thinking that removing standing will expedite us moving, is not happening I can tell you that. We will however think about what people discuss about our company and how that impacts our clients and whether we want to be part of that. So yes you can stick to your personal core values, but these aren't necessarily aligned by all parties.

If you believe that removing standing over reporting, whilst you know we are doing more than most parties here versus providing standing for some parties that do next to nothing but do report is the proper action. Sure do that. It just really isn't helping I think.
 
Well you can disagree all you want and that is fine. I am pointing out that as a company we will not risk this type of thinking (and calling out we have seen as well). Just like MC we will re-evaluate our involvement if we see the push for "objectiveness" and involvement continuing into a direction that only suits small entities. Because for us that ties into the potential success we see for the protocol as a whole
 
Ok I take it the update wasn't enough?

@Tor Paulsen
Would the standing change if I put in this as an update:

We are still heavily working on every single grant we have received till date and we will deliver them all, with more functionality than was mentioned during the application. Our partners and clients do mean we sometimes have to deviate from the 3 months plan. We have brought the 1st clinical triall, Verial the ETMF application to Factom. We have had a successful clothing exhibit in the municipality of Weert for the tokenization on Factom. Them very enthusiastic and wanting to continue. We have had a successful presentation of the badges solution, with many parties present and wanting to be involved with the future of it. We are working with Alfresco and Digital Asset on our endeavours for integration into their enterprise products and clients. We are working on getting Off-Blocks finished and the product in the hands of partners, clients and enterprises. We have hosted meetups, bringing in ANO candidates and working on renowned blockchain companies from NL applying for the grant pool.
 
Ok. I do not regard that as a full update about what we are doing, and every single bit of that information has already been disclosed in public channels by me.

So unless our team wants to put that out as the update of what we are doing, I am not going to.
 
Well you can disagree all you want and that is fine. I am pointing out that as a company we will not risk this type of thinking (and calling out we have seen as well). Just like MC we will re-evaluate our involvement if we see the push for "objectiveness" and involvement continuing into a direction that only suits small entities. Because for us that ties into the potential success we see for the protocol as a whole
I've lost count of how many times you've threatened to leave in just this topic alone.

So, getting back to brass tax:

The current ANO standing system is actually doing exactly what you want it to. I'd argue that for a system of barely two weeks old, that's not bad at all!

What does it do? It's already differentiating between bigger and smaller players. What I'm noticing is that the higher one's reputation, the lower one's activity threshold to maintain standing. Each party may define this threshold somewhat differently, but the sum of all votes would paint a more objective picture.

Multicoin's activity threshold (their minimum required activity) to get standing was far, FAR lower than any other ANO. No one expected regular updates. No one expected active governance input. Their activity threshold boiled down to server management (hmm) and showing the faintest sign of interest. It's quite telling that a single tweet would have likely given them enough standing to last a bit longer. What other ANO can say that?

Factom Inc ranks amongst the top of the standing ladder. Meanwhile they're not very active in governance. They're not bringing in significant usage. They have an underperforming guide. They're raking in most of the grant pool. They're a relentless seller on the FCT markets. And it's not costing them any standing as long as they're meeting their FAR lower activity threshold.

Standing can take a hit when the activity threshold isn't met. In your case, that's everything to do with not responding to repeated inquiries about a very long overdue public update (304 days). And like Factom Inc, because of your reputation and trust level, your standing is still respectably high (rightly so!), because it's the sum of opinions that counts, not a single vote by Tor Paulsen.

The system isn't perfect, but I see no systemic risk. Bigger parties get away with a lot.
 
Yupz, what you see as a threat by me is what I see as a threat as well for our involvement, hence me bringing it up. If people really think we are going to listen to every single voice in this ecosystem versus making sure what is in the best interest of our company then they are mistaken. If people think that calling us out in market channels or other channels is helping they are mistaken. If people think that creating websites about what parties received for what has been delivered and think we will work with that, they are mistaken.

The fact that the above update apparently would be enough to get this vote turned around also says enough I think.

What you describe as working but not perfect, I indeed describe as a systemic risk to have entities of our size or bigger involved. MC left because of it. They might not have been active in governance (they even mentioned that as a reason), but they do have a name to uphold and in all honesty we don't know whether they were doing good things for the protocol behind closed doors. For an entity like us, that is not the question in the first place. Thinking using standing will expedite it, or have entities like us involved is naive I think. I have lost track of how many times I defended the protocol internally, so at the end of the day there is a fine line in how much an entity wants to put up with and how much resources it has to put in.

Especially if people start asking questions around people not working during holiday season.
It is kinda laughable. Next thing I have to run people asking vacation by the standing parties. I am not responding to any inquiries as I am a guide and CTO, and this is a product/project thing and I am in the middle of these. As I have already mentioned several times, we need to get better at it, and we are ensuring time from Abe for it. But thinking we will respond to every single question/voice is not gonna happen and there will always be friction.

But if 1-2 person ANO's think they can influence the way larger entities work or even worse not even think about what it would take to get them on board, then we are in real trouble. Hence why expansion of standing needs to be expanded rapidly.

I think in all of this only David (Chapman) once approached us in private about needing to do a better job at updates given what we are doing for the protocol, which I respect and is in line with how we interact socially in society
 
Last edited:
I agree the update thing is a bit arbitrary, as I certainly wouldn't have re-instated standing for such a tongue-in-cheek update. ;)

Again, I'm not sure you really need to fear smaller parties influencing the way you need to act.

Yes, smaller parties have a vote, much like Malta has a vote in the European Union. And their vote matters as much as Germany's. It's the system we decided on, but it's the forging of consensus that matters and so far the consensus seems to be (91% standing) that Sphereon is trusted enough that people forgive you for the lack of updates.
 
Agree, but given the EU topic, or VN for that matter. How well is that working out? Ask the Belgium prime minister about last night ;)

It is far better to have other parties (FCT holders, EC users) weigh in than a small set trying to hold eachother accountable (holding each other accountable is fine), but right now it is really arbitrary and once people go down a certain path others will follow.

I really do get that people might be completely done with somebody like me, but in the end we need to be realistic about the fact that this protocol will not survive with some 1-2 person team entities (even if some of these are doing a stellar job)
 
I agree with Niels. Setting arbitrary efficiency numbers outside of consensus is lazy and stupid. If a Standing Party feels they can justify why BIF isn't providing enough to the protocol at their efficiency, fine. But lumping them in out of some "principled number" they pulled out of their ass and that alone results in removal of Standing is just plain dumb and highly detrimental to the ecosystem.

"Let me remove funding from the best performing ANOs because PRINCIPLES"
 
What goes wrong here IMO is that some parties are using one argument in determening standing. Whilst standing is the combination of factors. Making it about one thing is using it as a weapon to get people to follow your way. It doesn't work like that, because different people have different opinions and it sets bad precedents.
 
What goes wrong here IMO is that some parties are using one argument in determening standing. Whilst standing is the combination of factors. Making it about one thing is using it as a weapon to get people to follow your way. It doesn't work like that, because different people have different opinions and it sets bad precedents.
Exactly. This is why I came up with the long list of variables that go into how Factomize provides Standing and gives ample opportunity for ANOs to focus on areas of strength while taking minor hits in areas of weakness. And you'll note the Efficiency variable is, "49% or lower efficiency without justifying why in a manner we support". And even then, it's just a one point hit. If the ANO does great elsewhere, they can still get Standing.

THIS system is lazy and stupid.
 
What goes wrong here IMO is that some parties are using one argument in determening standing. Whilst standing is the combination of factors. Making it about one thing is using it as a weapon to get people to follow your way. It doesn't work like that, because different people have different opinions and it sets bad precedents.
Standing is not necessarily a combination of factors. In fact each standing party may use what criteria they like to extend standing one of my "dealbreakers" is 30% efficiency or lower. It is also not the only one as evident by all the standing I extended to other parties today, with reasons provided.
 
This also ties into standing being binary at this moment.

If it would be a scale of 0-10 for instance with 4 being "No standing" I am pretty sure Tor would not have scored us a 4 or below. But instead of let's say an 8 would give us a 6 or 7 because of it. Removing standing is nonsense IMO
 
This also ties into standing being binary at this moment.

If it would be a scale of 0-10 for instance with 4 being "No standing" I am pretty sure Tor would not have scored us a 4 or below. But instead of let's say an 8 would give us a 6 or 7 because of it. Removing standing is nonsense IMO
Standing being binary is fine as long as people don't have nonsense "deal breakers" that penalize high performing ANOs because they don't take into consideration all their other work.
 
Standing is not necessarily a combination of factors. In fact each standing party may use what criteria they like to extend standing one of my "dealbreakers" is 30% efficiency or lower. It is also not the only one as evident by all the standing I extended to other parties today, with reasons provided.
Ok so you really believe that every entity making up their own rules/ratings and then voting binary on any entity breaking a single rule in these without having them discussed up front or giving them time to react is gonna work?
 
Standing being binary is fine as long as people don't have nonsense "deal breakers" that penalize high performing ANOs because they don't take into consideration all their other work.
Oh yeah totally agree, but in both this case as well as your case, I think entities would not have voted no-standing at all tbh. But yes, standing by definition is a combination of factors. Not sure why this is being negated by Tor tbh
 
This also ties into standing being binary at this moment.

If it would be a scale of 0-10 for instance with 4 being "No standing" I am pretty sure Tor would not have scored us a 4 or below. But instead of let's say an 8 would give us a 6 or 7 because of it. Removing standing is nonsense IMO
I don't believe that would have made a difference in the event that someone arbitrarily decides to not support ANOs below a certain efficiency. Someone like that would have just picked 4 or below to indicate standing removal.

The only way to properly solve this is for everyone to adopt a series of metrics that allow ANOs a chance to keep standing based on other factors. If there were a set of metrics that could be agreed upon, each individual ANO could choose to give different weight to different metrics based on what they value is important (within reason).
 
Sure, but knowing Tor, I don;t believe he would have voted binary for an entity like BIF or Factomize. Without the points he holds dearly, he probably would have voted both entities pretty high. If you do not vote binary it would have lowered your score, but not to the point it was no standing I believe.

But yes making sure you either provide a collection of metrics and also show how you will weigh these makes sense, as I already applauded David for. You might not necessarily agree on every single aspect of the voting, but at least it provides food for discussion and isn't as binary as what we see now.

We have also already seen people asking leading questions to all ANOs suggesting they have to take a certain direction or loose standing. That certainly isn't the way to go.
 
Standing shouldn't be about people having to fear from every single direction because of a metric that is apparently very important for them without having the parties notified about it. Standing is about whether you believe parties bring enough value to this ecosystem. IMO it certainly shouldn't be binary on single issues you find important.

That is like trying to hold people accountable to all laws across the globe without them knowing about it, Some are quite common, others certainly are not
 
Top