Approved Grant Development Grant Initial Proposal

Secured
#2
How many developers will be working on this grant?

Is there a rough breakdown of the 30,000 FCT a month budget?

I’m obviously fully for this project, and wholly support it and understand the importance, but....

Just to be aware, if I read it correctly - According to Gov Doc 4.1.5 - Multiple payouts such as this require 2X FCT set aside to account for fluctuating price to ensure costs are met.

This means 60,000 FCT will be tied up monthly to this grant. More than enters the grant pool.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Secured
#4
Hi @PaulSnow . What happens if the price of FCT doubles or triples because of a well time news release?:) Factom Inc would be getting over $1,000,000/month when this grant is based off $450,000/month-ish. That's a hell of a profit off the grant pool. I think the community would rather see the hypothetical $750,000 profit go towards other community projects instead of Factom Inc's pocket.I believe all the other grant proposals are priced in USD. Would be great if yours could be also.
 
Secured
#5
Hi @PaulSnow . What happens if the price of FCT doubles or triples because of a well time news release?:) Factom Inc would be getting over $1,000,000/month when this grant is based off $450,000/month-ish. That's a hell of a profit off the grant pool. I think the community would rather see the hypothetical $750,000 profit go towards other community projects instead of Factom Inc's pocket.I believe all the other grant proposals are priced in USD. Would be great if yours could be also.
This is why I suggested a 3 month realignment. That's there in the grant proposal. It means that if the price went through the roof, we could adjust for it 3 months into a 6 month grant.

Certainly we might risk a huge haul. But we just saw an unexpected bleed of the price. I can't predict what happens over the next 3 months.
 
Secured
#7
How many developers will be working on this grant?

Is there a rough breakdown of the 30,000 FCT a month budget?

I’m obviously fully for this project, and wholly support it and understand the importance, but....
We have listed a pile of work we have to do in the grant.. I did do a huge amount of budgeting internally, but the variables are really tough to estimate. We have currency risk, complexity risk, staffing risks, funding risks (beyond the period of the grant), and more. With other grants, like the Gates foundation, we work through what we do and how we do it as we go. This is about the only way to do the discovery on work that has no precedent and is closer to real research than normal development.

One of the reasons we have a sponsor and looking to add another is to give an inside track into our planning and budgeting. We don't believe it is appropriate to publish people's income on public forums, and a good bit about budgeting is sensitive company information when you have investors and clients.

Just to be aware, if I read it correctly - According to Gov Doc 4.1.5 - Multiple payouts such as this require 2X FCT set aside to account for fluctuating price to ensure costs are met.

This means 60,000 FCT will be tied up monthly to this grant. More than enters the grant pool.

Thanks
That only matters if the grant is in dollars. We are explicitly not defining the grant in dollars, but in FCT, so 4.1.5 doesn't apply. If we did try to restrict the grant pool to dollar delineated grants (something the governance document does not require) we would be ham stringed right now exactly when we need to double down on development and investment in the Factom ecosystem.
 
Secured
#8
Which is all the more reason to price the grant as $450,000 USD instead as 30,000 FCT. You can limit all your downside. :smile
But it doesn't, as discussed in the thread about grant pool expectations. The FCT is allocated a week before issued, and by the time the tokens are issued, then currency risk has already bitten. Also, if we are using OTC to access the value, we may need to accumulate a number of payments to meet minimum trade requirements. That also can bite us. Further, taxes may apply based on the point at which the payment is scheduled instead of the coins created. That also can create many headaches.

Never mind the programming issues behind constantly adjusting payouts, and the possible disagreements to that automation or manual intervention!

Taking the payment in FCT is the most simple solution from a programming point of view, and risk assessment point of view. And a realignment in 3 months can deal with gross errors. Experience will help us going forward.

Also the restriction of 4.1.5 haves the tokens we can utilize now, when we really need to jump start the ecosystem. I think FCT denominated payments are the simplest of solutions.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#12
@PaulSnow

1. I have no idea what "realignment" means. What does this process entail?

2. Due to the non-answer of my second question, I'll assume excess profits from FCT price appreciation will be spent on whatever Factom Inc wants instead of projects that directly benefit both Factom inc and the community, unless I am otherwise corrected. All the more reason to price this grant in USD, just like every other grant proposal has done. It appears the community is fine giving Factom Inc $450,000K for development that benefits everyone (I am also). However, if Factom ink is going to rake-in $1,000,000+ in pure profits off the grant pool each month, then this is something entirely different. The community deserves clarity on how these excess profits would be spent.

Thank you
 
Secured
#14
@PaulSnow

2. Due to the non-answer of my second question, I'll assume excess profits from FCT price appreciation will be spent on whatever Factom Inc wants instead of projects that directly benefit both Factom inc and the community, unless I am otherwise corrected. All the more reason to price this grant in USD, just like every other grant proposal has done. It appears the community is fine giving Factom Inc $450,000K for development that benefits everyone (I am also). However, if Factom ink is going to rake-in $1,000,000+ in pure profits off the grant pool each month, then this is something entirely different. The community deserves clarity on how these excess profits would be spent.

Thank you
If we were making a million a month in the third month, then we could adjust the grant accordingly and reduce payments in the following 3 months to track the actual target value intended. Factom Inc. is not aiming for excessive profits, and have suggested a means to avoid most such likely swings by being able to adjust payouts at the mid point.

It goes without saying that we have been developing Factom for four years without any income stream from the protocol to support the process. We could assert that "excess profits" is very, very unlikely in this context. In general, if the price goes up significantly, that allows us to scale way back on tokens drawn from the grant pool even as we maintain support from a dollar value perspective. The higher the token price, the more options we actually have for building the infrastructure around and on Factom from the grant pool resource perspective.

As a company, Factom is committed to pushing the protocol with these resources from our grants, at whatever level. Just as we have, when "whatever level" was zero.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#15
Sure I wasn’t asking for salaries to be made public; even though public officials do when paid from public money.

This isn’t all too dissimilar. And for transparency, ANO’s shared their proposed salaries.

Anyway, on behalf of the protocol - I was hoping for a whisp of detail before happily voting $500k a month to you.

Are you hiring extra developers to focus on core?
 
Secured
#16
Sure I wasn’t asking for salaries to be made public; even though public officials do when paid from public money.

This isn’t all too dissimilar. And for transparency, ANO’s shared their proposed salaries.

Anyway, on behalf of the protocol - I was hoping for a whisp of detail before happily voting $500k a month to you.

Are you hiring extra developers to focus on core?
When you take a job for a company like Factom Inc., you are not running for office like some public officials. So it is very different. ANO's have a standard payout, and a reason to campaign for their position as well. They are not required to detail who they are paying internally and how much.

An employee for a company using a grant should not have their pay made public in general. Some non-profits and government agencies do have disclosure requirements and standard pay grades that are public, but that is also problematic. Contractors are used to get around such limitations and disclosures. We should not have that issue, as we are not building a system of non-profits, or government agencies here. We are hopefully incentivizing and seeding an ecosystem.

The detail that really matters is what we are going to do. We have listed a huge set of tasks that we either wish to focus on directly or will take on if we have the resources to do so. And yes, we are planing on bringing on more senior developers to work on core.
 
Secured
#17
1. What is the realignment process exactly? Does Factom inc have to submit a new grant? Does the community have to call a meeting? Do the Guides? If no one calls a meeting, does the 30,000/month stay? Is this entirely up to the sponsor? Maybe I am missing something, but this feel like the process was left intentionally vague. Could you please drill down? Thanks

2.
In general, if the price goes up significantly, that allows us to scale way back on tokens drawn from the grant pool even as we maintain support from a dollar value perspective.
If FCT price goes up 100%, would you you publicly support reviewing the 30,000 FCT payout?

Thanks for your answers tonight
 
Secured
#18
1. What is the realignment process exactly? Does Factom inc have to submit a new grant? Does the community have to call a meeting? Do the Guides? If no one calls a meeting, does the 30,000/month stay? Is this entirely up to the sponsor? Maybe I am missing something, but this feel like the process was left intentionally vague. Could you please drill down? Thanks

2.
If FCT price goes up 100%, would you you publicly support reviewing the 30,000 FCT payout?

Thanks for your answers tonight
The intention is to design a mechanism for adjusting a grant in flight. First round may wish to Simply issue a 3-month grant, then a grant in 3 months at an adjusted rate.

I think eventually we need to have a process to manage a grant in flight. This needs to be designed and it isn't yet, but I see several ways to do it. Hence the wording.

To be clear, The Proposal is asking for a grant and a grant process. On the other hand, as Developers, we will need a design and the time to implement it too. So let's discuss and figure it out. This is not the only grant with design and implementation assuptions in need of software design and software requirements TBD.
 
Secured
#20
I'm all for the content and goals of the grant. My concern and problem is with the excess funding.

I'm sure you'll need to hire a bunch of new developers to get the work done, right? We all now we can't open a tap and just add new developers immediately (would love to). It will take time to find, hire and place them.

However, the grant starts in full from day one. This means there will be excess funds for sure.

I understand that varying the grant payout accounting for this or exchange rate fluctuation is not practical. But I would like to see some guarantee and check that the excess grant money will be used towards the goal of the grant given.

BTW this is also the main reason that we as ANO are a foundation: any excess funds we have can only be spend for the goals of the foundation.
 
Secured
#21
I support the goals of this grant and the re-evaluation of the FCT payout after 3 months into the grant. I'm confident Factom Inc. would use extra profits to fund work that goes towards furthering the protocol. It is true the price of FCT could skyrocket and be five or ten times the current price by the time the grant funds are distributed. This however is an unknown and might not happen in that time frame. I imagine it is difficult for Factom Inc. to provide concrete details on how the funds will be spent when it is only a possibility at this time. The opposite could also occur, where the FCT price drops further to $10.
I do hope though that as the grant project moves into action, any enormous extra profits that might occur from FCT price appreciation would be acknowledged by Factom Inc. and there would be transparency in where funds will be directed. I think this issue is more for down the road though in the event FCT price spikes.
 
Secured
#23
I'm all for the content and goals of the grant. My concern and problem is with the excess funding.

I'm sure you'll need to hire a bunch of new developers to get the work done, right? We all now we can't open a tap and just add new developers immediately (would love to). It will take time to find, hire and place them.

However, the grant starts in full from day one. This means there will be excess funds for sure.

I understand that varying the grant payout accounting for this or exchange rate fluctuation is not practical. But I would like to see some guarantee and check that the excess grant money will be used towards the goal of the grant given.

BTW this is also the main reason that we as ANO are a foundation: any excess funds we have can only be spend for the goals of the foundation.
We do have the advantage of having 34 to 36 people already, and four years of hard work on the protocol. This does help with staffing in that we have a management and engineering structure already that can accommodate the new people.

We have also committed to aggressive development, and to staffing up to do so, not just for the next six months, but for years. The front loading is a very, very short term issue, and on our side there is more worry about staffing up based on funding that might be drastically reduced at some point. I believe that we have so much to do, and so many opportunities, we have to be running as hard as possible right out of the gate.

Relative to the other blockchain projects out there, this level of resources is pretty small. And even relative to what we are likely to be doing in a year it is likely to look small.
 
Secured
#24
Every single grantee stands to profit if the price of the factoid increases, regardless of whether they ask for payment in FCT or peg it initially to USD. Why is Factom Inc. being put through the ringer more than anyone else?
 
Secured
#25
Every single grantee stands to profit if the price of the factoid increases, regardless of whether they ask for payment in FCT or peg it initially to USD. Why is Factom Inc. being put through the ringer more than anyone else?
I fully agree with that we all stand to profit, but we're talking about appr. $3,000,000 here. Considering this, I find asking few questions not putting them "through the (w)ringer". I hate to think what VCs would put Paul through.

(btw, let's take this type of chats to discord)
 
Secured
#26
I fully agree with that we all stand to profit, but we're talking about appr. $3,000,000 here. Considering this, I find asking few questions not putting them "through the (w)ringer". I hate to think what VCs would put Paul through.
I just mean that none of the other questions about budgets seems to be surrounding the potential take upon appreciation of the factoid. I get wanting to understand how the budget gets spent, but questions based upon "the number of factoids you request x 3 x $17 is a crazy number" seem completely irrelevant to any individual requestor.
 
Secured
#27
@stately If this were a one month grant, then this would not be an issue. This is a grant that pays out monthly for six months. If the price fo FCT hits $45, then Factom inc would have the equivalent $1,350,000 while only being required to put in $450,000 in development. That's almost a million dollars the grant pool would be paying Factom Inc above what the grant was asking for.
 
Secured
#29
Didn't I answer this @MattO ?

The intention is to design a mechanism for adjusting a grant in flight. First round may wish to Simply issue a 3-month grant, then a grant in 3 months at an adjusted rate.

I think eventually we need to have a process to manage a grant in flight. This needs to be designed and it isn't yet, but I see several ways to do it. Hence the wording.

To be clear, The Proposal is asking for a grant and a grant process. On the other hand, as Developers, we will need a design and the time to implement it too. So let's discuss and figure it out. This is not the only grant with design and implementation assuptions in need of software design and software requirements TBD.