Vote Tor Paulsen Removed Standing for Kompendium

Chappie

Factomize Bot
@Kompendium

Tor Paulsen Removed Standing. At the time of this vote, your Standing is 88%.

Their reasoning for this vote is:
I have made a principle decision to not extend standing to any ANO operating at an efficiency below 30%, and I am thus removing standing for your ANO.

This is something I alluded to doing already last year when the ANO standing system was approved, and the reasoning behind this decision is that it is almost impossible to keep ANOs operating at very low efficiencies properly accountable. I believe that some ANO's may be involved in projects warranting an efficiency below the cutoff, and I urge these ANOs to utilize the grant pool for these efforts as an alternate way of achieving the necessary funding.

The 30% cutoff is a starting-point and subject to change in the future, and if the standing parties updates the ANO expectations document with a sliding scale of minimum efficiency dependent on price, I am likely to use that as a guideline.
You can see how Tor Paulsen has historically voted for Kompendium by going here.

You are welcome to reply to this thread or contact Tor Paulsen privately. And please remember to keep your ANO Contributions area updated.
 
Fair call Tor, I'm still going to defend it though.

I'd be interested in seeing a rolling tally of efficiency/month, not just the face value as a few weeks ago we went to 15%.

Many projects have had plenty of time to prove themselves at lower efficiency before this standing system came in and everyone just had to accept that their secret proprietary projects failed.

What do people here think Kompendium's rolling tally is regarding efficiency per month? How do they think it compares to many others in the ecosystem?

6 months at 60% 1 month at 15%. Perhaps whip out a calculator to see how that compares to others here?

I can spend some time getting the numbers for everyone else if needed. Even more interesting would be the USD amount of those payouts. We were operating at 60% when the price was ~$2 while actively running projects hoping for backpayment to cover it, undoubtedly many will forget that fact quite quickly, understandable, human nature is like that.

Someone should create a site where the community can view the total USD/EUR amounts extracted by all ANO's and then link to their contributions from here.

Being properly informed is the best way to decide upon these matters of governance.
 
6 months at 60% 1 month at 15%. Perhaps whip out a calculator to see how that compares to others here?

I can spend some time getting the numbers for everyone else if needed.
I plan to provide an average lifetime efficiency on the validator dashboard on factoshi.io in the near(ish) future.

Someone should create a site where the community can view the total USD/EUR amounts extracted by all ANO's and then link to their contributions from here.
I know of someone working on that very thing. I will let them report that if/when they are ready.
 
I really lack perspective for accommodating bigger entities both on the technical sides, voting decisions not being thought through with respect to larger users of the protocol and people thinking they can objectify everything.

I am afraid it is reaching a point where the opposite of what the protocol strives to do will happen.

Yes maybe the most open protocol in history with all kinds of reporting. Also the protocol that accommodates 1 or 2 person ANOs and entities only. It is this lack of being able to take the perspective of larger entities into mind when trying to build it out that I regard as almost a systemic risk at this point
 
Fair call Tor, I'm still going to defend it though.

I'd be interested in seeing a rolling tally of efficiency/month, not just the face value as a few weeks ago we went to 15%.

Many projects have had plenty of time to prove themselves at lower efficiency before this standing system came in and everyone just had to accept that their secret proprietary projects failed.

What do people here think Kompendium's rolling tally is regarding efficiency per month? How do they think it compares to many others in the ecosystem?

6 months at 60% 1 month at 15%. Perhaps whip out a calculator to see how that compares to others here?

I can spend some time getting the numbers for everyone else if needed. Even more interesting would be the USD amount of those payouts. We were operating at 60% when the price was ~$2 while actively running projects hoping for backpayment to cover it, undoubtedly many will forget that fact quite quickly, understandable, human nature is like that.

Someone should create a site where the community can view the total USD/EUR amounts extracted by all ANO's and then link to their contributions from here.

Being properly informed is the best way to decide upon these matters of governance.
I would just like to mention that I have seen what you are proposing demonstrated this week by a community member. I believe they will release it to the community as an open source tool soon.
 
I plan to provide an average lifetime efficiency on the validator dashboard on factoshi.io in the near(ish) future.



I know of someone working on that very thing. I will let them report that if/when they are ready.
@Alex I already mentioned above something. I hope you can address that first., but would really like to expand upon that

So we are net negative with regards to amount of FCT taken out, despite what people probably are thinking (have taken FCT out).
Investments alone into entities around us, brought by us and partners are bigger than the amount of FCT we received. Nope that won't all go directly into the protocol, but these entities are relying and building on the protocol.

Same for having people working on Factom related projects for which we get no money at all. It costs us money. We do it for our company and partners obviously, but as well for the protocol as a whole.

What number would your website show for a party like us, and do you believe that to be an accurate reflection? Or is it just something you really cannot objectify. Because we certainly are not going to disclose investments and/or FTEs we direct towards the protocol.

This is the core of the tension you are seeing from us. The push to try to objectify everything completely disregards the reality of larger entities.
 
Last edited:
I would have to do the math, but if I take direct investments by us, our partners minus FCT we have taken out through grants, then probably more than 1 million dollars has gone into Factom projects (open-source, as well as entities building on Factom), with more to come. Obviously that is not taking into account FCT we are holding or anything. Direct investments.

Yet your "objective" tool will probably show something completely opposite. Do you believe we will tie our name to that?
 
@Alex I already mentioned above something. I hope you can address that first., but would really like to expand upon that
Was that question above for me? I don't understand what you're asking, sorry. Please would you rephrase it?

What number would your website show for a party like us, and do you believe that to be an accurate reflection?
As I said, it's not my website and not my project. I think you should direct those questions to the person who is building it if and when they decide to make it public. I don't know their full plans and I'm not sure if it will ever become public.

Do you believe we will tie our name to that?
I don't have any beliefs about it one way or another.
 
The push to try to objectify everything completely disregards the reality of larger entities
Certainly respect this, the metrics will always be a rough approximation and understand you do a lot that is unspoken, yet still stand by the point that quantifying these matters makes governance a lot simpler for everyone required to vote.

Having clear, concise numbers on this matter can't hurt. Everyone is free to mention the unpaid work they do.
 
Last edited:

Valentin Ganev

Factomatic
@Niels Klomp -- I'm not sure what the questions are exactly and I'm not sure why I'm being prompted to answer them, especially here.

We have recently developed an internal tool, which tracks the amount of FCT (and the $ tax base) for all ANOs, as well as a number of other metrics, which can be computed based on on-chain data, such as average efficiency., duration in the ANO set, amount contributed to the grant pool, etc. We may choose to make it public at some point, we may keep it internal.

The metrics we have obviously do not account for investments made by ANOs -- clearly, there is no reliable way to obtain those. We are very well aware of that fact, but we still do not see any issue with having ANO revenue and related numbers readily available at a glance for public or private use. All of this information is public after all, we have only structured it in a more easily comprehensible format.
 
Yes info like that in itself is fine, until people start suggesting to use it for standing or not awarding grant proposals, because party X is already net negative. I do hope you see that in automation that quite easily becomes the next step.

Something like that never paints the complete picture and moves parties that arguable bring the most value in an almost impossible position as they typically cannot disclose all their financials and investments.

I do hope that people can logically deduct overall potential dangerous movements when you try to objectify everything (which is impossible, as I hopefully explained with above examples)
 
Top