Expanding the Factom Standing Parties

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Secured
#1
Dear community,

during the past months there has been an on/off-discussion regarding expanding the Factom Standing Parties beyond Factom Guides and Authority Node Operators.

The Factom Governance Document (6.2) describes multiple standing parties in addition to the above, including FCT-holders and users of the protocol. As the use of the protocol by means of Entry Credits is negligible, we believe FCT-holders would be the best addition to the standing parties at this time.

The governance document dictates that every standing party should have a digital identity; and as of now this is not a viable solution as the infrastructure is not ready, but we still believe it is very important to expand the standing parties sooner than later.

Thus, we would like to revive this discussion and have the community provide input in regards of an interim solution... Some suggestions have already been proposed:
1) Community self organizing a body which provides it's input both in governance discussion and voting, or;
2) FCT-holders get assigned a "weight" based on their holdings and can put this weight into play during governance matters, or;
3) There is created a "minimum" amount of FCT-required to participate/vote; and everyone with enough FCT is provided the same amount of weight.

For solution 2 or 3 we could potentially leverage MyFactomWallet and Factomize; seeking to provide a solution where a FCT-holder could convert a small amount into Entry-Credits and then (very easily) add an entry to a special Factom-chain which ties the FCT-amount they control to their Factomize-user....

The technical implementation would have to been discussed later, but we are certain some solution could be established rather quickly. Some of the issues we have identified already are:

- ANOs already receive revenue from hosting nodes and could spend this on increasing their voting weight (they can "launder" their FCT through an exchange to ensure nobody would know.
- A low FCT-amount limit for participating would enable ANOs and people/entities holding massive amounts of FCT to split it up and gain a ton of individual votes (again; "laundering" through an exchange and send to multiple addresses.

- Using "weight" of holding has the same issues; entities with a lot of FCT gains a lot of weight. Maybe not an issue in comparative situations (stocks, equity), but for us it would just add to the standing these entities already have
- An interim solution isn't "on-chain" - and we'd have to expand it/move it when such a solution is available.

Ideally we would have a solution on-chain for handling this - which could provide a proper staking solution involving increasing weight with time etc., but for now that is not feasible as the infrastructure is not in place.

Right now this initiative is in the planning stage, but we would like the community to participate and shape this solution together. Hopefully we will be able to agree on some principles which we can bring into a document which temporarily provides the FCT-holders with standing in the protocol until a proper on-chain solution is available.

Best regards
Niels & Tor
 

Chappie

Timed Discussion Bot
Secured
#2
This thread is a Major Timed Discussion and I am designed to help facilitate efficient communication.

Everyone may take part in this discussion and vote. Unless this discussion is ended early or extended, it will end in 8 days after which a vote may take place. After 18 hours from the start of the thread or any point up until 24 hours are left in the discussion, you can make a motion to end the discussion immediately or extend the discussion beyond it's initial time frame by selecting the pertinent button at the top of this thread. If someone "seconds" your motion, a poll will take place and if a majority of voters vote yes by the time the discussion is scheduled to end, the time period will be extended for 72 hours.
 
Secured
#4
Would the below be possible technically?

-You develop an application which hands out fct addresses with private keys to vote.
-After you received the private key you change it and transfer a certain amount of fct
-When it's added you have a vote
 
Secured
#6
@losmilos Yes that would be possible, but not creating the key yourself, means you don't own the address ;)
As weight would be needed to do proper standing (along with identities and history of the balance, so you don't game it)

@Azn1nvas1on A think realistically the interim solution would have a life expectancy of 9-18 months. We need to do this right when getting the tech solution in place. More than 6 months have passed since M3 started and this topic has come up several times. The voting spec is a prereq along with the identities. But the proper solution needs a lot more thinking, discussions and tech. So if we are really lucky it could be a grant next round. I think we won't be ready by that time, so it will probably 2 grant rounds from now, hence my 9 months.
 
Secured
#7
I'm willing to challenge the premise of this post: "As the use of the protocol by means of Entry Credits is negligible, we believe FCT-holders would be the best addition to the standing parties at this time."

I'm personally more interested in having users of the protocol weight in discussions. Even if there are only a few at the moment their point of view is more valuable in my opinion that the diffuse/heterogeneous crowd of FCT holders with (mostly) financial gain goals. I'm not interested in witnessing a War of the Whales for Factom governance hegemony. Instead of trying to create yet another game-able PoS system, why not leverage the uniqueness of our protocol, EC mechanics are great and EC ownership conveys much more standing in the protocol in my view.

Disclaimer: I own ~100 EC.
 
Secured
#9
What is preventing FCT holders from creating an Identity and signing (via SK1 or higher) that an FA address is associated with their ID (similar to our publishing of ID’s)? Asking this for the sake of discussion. Thinking how we can publish FA addresses to an identity. I recognize it’s prob a PITA to implement with on-chain code, but wanting to see if it’s possible to duplicate Authority Set ID Management to that of FCT holder identity management?
 
Secured
#10
This is probably a dumb question but what would standing parties be entitled to vote on? Would it be limited to voting on governance and guide elections or would it also include the grants process?

I'm not sure I feel it is fair for standing parties to have a vote on the grant process because the money that goes to fund it has been donated by the ANOs. I wouldn't be against standing parties donating funds towards the grant pool if that could be an option in the future :)

I do think standing parties should be able to vote on the removal and appointment of ANOs and possibly guides. One thing we could do is require standing parties to provide a verified identity. This would allow the protocol to stay clean we maybe don't want tax avoiders and money launders having a say in the running of the protocol?

Standing parties being required to hold EC is an interesting idea, they've effectively burned their FCT. Right now the only people who are going to do that are probably mostly ANOs themselves, personally, I don't think it makes the protocol anymore decentralized and for that reason, I feel I would be against the idea.
 
Secured
#12
2) FCT-holders get assigned a "weight" based on their holdings and can put this weight into play during governance matters, or;
3) There is created a "minimum" amount of FCT-required to participate/vote; and everyone with enough FCT is provided the same amount of weight.
Would a combination of the two be possible, something along the lines of how US states are represented in Congress? For instance:

> Everyone above a certain minimum balance gets a voting weight of X (Senate).
> In addition, each individual FCT that someone holds has a voting weight of Y (House of Representatives).

And/or:

There is a voting-weight tier system based on holdings. So, say, 7 different tiers, depending on size of holdings. If the weight of the tiers adjusts non-linearly, disproportionally benefitting the highest tiers, this would solve the problem of someone creating multiple accounts. Another benefit is that holders would be incentivized to add to their holdings in order to get into the next tier.

My initial thoughts ... thanks for starting this conversation @Tor Paulsen!
 
Last edited:
Secured
#13
An additional option beyond the listed 3.

4. We airdrop one FAT voting token to each FCT address that has a digital identity tied to it which registers on the "Staking" chain. The token can be traded to allow for delegation of votes (and uses EC). When such a standing party takes part in a vote, they have X votes where X is the number of tokens they have.

The total weight of Staked votes is 15% of the total vote and 80% is ANOs and 5% is Guides. As additional Standing Parties come online, the weight of ANOs is reduced.

All of this can be done via a simple UI on Factomize which would eventually be part of factomprotocol.org.

(this system can also be easily expanded to other Standing Parties to bring them online sooner)
 
Secured
#14
Well ... this is a test of fire for Factom and the democratic and decentralized spirit of the Blockchain ... I celebrate.

In my opinion, while the only beneficiaries of Factom's inflation are the ANOs, there will hardly be a representative expression of the community. A balanced expression of the community would require that the voting power of the token holders be in accordance with the possessed tokens. And Factom's fixed remuneration system not only does not reduce inflation by 10%, but leads to higher annual inflation ... and, therefore, to its beneficiaries having an increasingly greater weight in the economic structure and also of FACTOM government. And while that tendency exists, hardly the expression of that organization will be balanced.

In my opinion, inflation should be limited to 2 premises:

1- 73000 Factoids / month

2- Maximum 10% inflation

BOTH must be considered ... or FACTOM will be aimed at inflation ALWAYS HIGHER THAN 10% (IN a first tranche, accumulated ... and in a second - from the point where the supply is deflationary - REAL). And in both cases, the weight of the ANOs in the organization will be increasing

I propose initially that it is the actual use of the protocol itself that "democratizes" the expression of the collective. And it would undermine the inflation of FACTOM to the 2 premises previously mentioned. when REAL inflation exceeds 10%, share it with the community ... and that the particular Nodes, beyond the ANOs, share the creation of Factoids to the extent that they exceed 10% per year. And there we should not worry about marking a representative way of voting, since it would not only be proportional to the presence of each one in FACTOM (investment, which would be the most natural thing and what is used to check now), but a consequent retribution of the rewards, which would also be a FACTO presence in the REAL structure of the organization.

Meditate on this: If the FACTOM inflation is a fixed emission of 73000 Factoids per month, the inflation will always be greater than 10% (first, the accumulated one and, once they reach a use that exceeds the emission, the REAL ... and this, always for the benefit of the same: Those who receive this inflation). That approach is, imho, deeply unbalanced. And I think that if the rewards were not limited to the ANOs (limiting them to a very generous return of a maximum of 10% of the inflation) the representation and community expression would be produced by pure inertia.

If the inflation is not a FIXED of 73,000 per month (which, in case of the successful use of FACTOM that we all seek, inevitably leads to this fixed rate exceeding 10%, it would lead to a part of FACTOM having more and more proportions of tokens regarding the total supply) ... I am waiting and grateful for your clarifications. Meanwhile, I believe that the best way of expression of the Factom community would be a very simple representation ... and based on tokens (that even though they currently benefit the ANOs criterion due to their continued entry of Factoids, it would be representative, since they are who currently have more criteria on the FACTOM ecosystem) and this would be valid for a future where the concentration of power / benefit of FACTOM inflation was oriented, while rewarding the ANOs, to a real weight of the community in the structure of the organization. The current distribution of FACTOM inflation, today probably insufficient for the work of the ANOs, leads, paradoxically ,if I'm not wrong... to a huge concentration of the tokens in a context of massive use of the FACTOM blockchain. Balancing that future trend NOW, I think we would get a much more balanced approach in all aspects, including that of voting.

Thanks for the initiative and for wanting to bring the expression of FACTOM closer to a representative sample ... this denotes a very positive and empathic disposition of the ANOs towards the real decentralization for which we want to work, which is positive for all. Greetings and encouragement.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#15
Well ... this is a test of fire for Factom and the democratic and decentralized spirit of the Blockchain ... I celebrate.

In my opinion, while the only beneficiaries of Factom's inflation are the ANOs, there will hardly be a representative expression of the community. A balanced expression of the community would require that the voting power of the token holders be in accordance with the possessed tokens. And Factom's fixed remuneration system not only does not reduce inflation by 10%, but leads to higher annual inflation ... and, therefore, to its beneficiaries having an increasingly greater weight in the economic structure and also of FACTOM government. And while that tendency exists, hardly the expression of that organization will be balanced.

In my opinion, inflation should be limited to 2 premises:

1- 73000 Factoids / month

2- Maximum 10% inflation

BOTH must be considered ... or FACTOM will be aimed at inflation ALWAYS HIGHER THAN 10% (IN a first tranche, accumulated ... and in a second - from the point where the supply is deflationary - REAL). And in both cases, the weight of the ANOs in the organization will be increasing...
Annual infaltion with a fixed limit of token inflation (73,000 fact/month) is always below 10%. That's because inflation is fixed to 10% of the original supply, not the current supply.

Inflation cannot exceed 10% of the Factoid supply unless we reduce the supply below the number of tokens initially issued.

Also, ANOs give up tokens through efficiency, so they don't get all the 73000 tokens issued per month. Most take only half their allotment, and unassigned ANO servers give up 100% of their allotment. These tokens go to the grant pool, where grant recipients are funded. Grants get most of the 73,000 tokens today.

But these tokens are not often "held" but fund organizations to do work, i.e. run servers, build infrastructure, market the protocol, do legal work, etc. Even where the tokens are not sold but held, the organizations are holding by having to invest their own funds to do their work.

As a result:

Most holders either have held tokens through the highs and lows, or purchased tokens in the market, or spent their own money to meet obligations rather than sell the tokens they received as ANOs or Grantees.

As time goes on, and if the supply continues to grow, the ANOs share will continually fall on a percent basis relative to the total supply.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#17
I don't believe it would be too hard to:

  • Write some scripts to set up an identity, register the identity.
  • Write scripts to stake fct to the identity.
  • Write scripts to stake ec to the identity
  • Write scripts to stake efficiency to the identity
  • Write some scripts to compute standing for said identities.
  • Sign votes with a registered identity
We should consider a move from ANO standing, to ANO efficiency (so that ANOs with higher efficiency have higher standing).

Integration into platforms like factomize and factomprotocol would be great, but we also need to be able to confirm votes running standard, reviewed code, on our on systems.
 
Secured
#18
This is probably a dumb question but what would standing parties be entitled to vote on? Would it be limited to voting on governance and guide elections or would it also include the grants process?

I'm not sure I feel it is fair for standing parties to have a vote on the grant process because the money that goes to fund it has been donated by the ANOs. I wouldn't be against standing parties donating funds towards the grant pool if that could be an option in the future :)
And against who's money is the fund you talk about created (inflation). This is not a matter if we want it. We will get it as it is in our governance to begin with.

I do think standing parties should be able to vote on the removal and appointment of ANOs and possibly guides. One thing we could do is require standing parties to provide a verified identity. This would allow the protocol to stay clean we maybe don't want tax avoiders and money launders having a say in the running of the protocol?
Not sure what you mean with verified here, but besides having a cryptographic proof of holding, no more verification should be required. This is a decentralized project. All stakeholders should have a say.

Standing parties being required to hold EC is an interesting idea, they've effectively burned their FCT. Right now the only people who are going to do that are probably mostly ANOs themselves, personally, I don't think it makes the protocol anymore decentralized and for that reason, I feel I would be against the idea.
again this is in governance. So you can be against, that is your perogarative, but the decentralization started with parties agreeing to include it. Btw this group I'd arguably the most important group of them all. Without usage we have nothing. We already have by far a majority of non ANOs in this category.
 
Secured
#20
Annual infaltion with a fixed limit of token inflation (73,000 fact/month) is always below 10%. That's because inflation is fixed to 10% of the original supply, not the current supply.

Inflation cannot exceed 10% of the Factoid supply unless we reduce the supply below the number of tokens initially issued.

Also, ANOs give up tokens through efficiency, so they don't get all the 73000 tokens issued per month. Most take only half their allotment, and unassigned ANO servers give up 100% of their allotment. These tokens go to the grant pool, where grant recipients are funded. Grants get most of the 73,000 tokens today.

But these tokens are not often "held" but fund organizations to do work, i.e. run servers, build infrastructure, market the protocol, do legal work, etc. Even where the tokens are not sold but held, the organizations are holding by having to invest their own funds to do their work.

As a result:

Most holders either have held tokens through the highs and lows, or purchased tokens in the market, or spent their own money to meet obligations rather than sell the tokens they received as ANOs or Grantees.

As time goes on, and if the supply continues to grow, the ANOs share will continually fall on a percent basis relative to the total supply.
Thanks for the reply, Paul. However, I do not agree. (I start from the premise that the Factoids converted to Ecredits, are queried - if I'm wrong, I appreciate a correction -). In this deflationary scenario, in fact, the monthly emission of Factoids would not only be no more than 10% of the supply at that time ... but the more the FACTOM blockchain was adopted, the more it would lead to retention in a few hands (totally insane, in my opinion and said with the greatest respect, in a decentralized and democratic "spirit" organization)

Everybody wants to achieve deflation in FACTOM. A stage where the creation of wealth of its monetary extension would be directly proportional to the success of the adoption of our blockchain ... but the burning of Factoids, too. A sufficient adoption would, as a first stage, burn the generated 73,000 monthly factoids, reaching the balance between emission and use. To arrive from there would come the deflation that would rise the quotation to the margin of no speculation, since the Factoids would become a scarce good ... more, the more the blockchain of FACTOM was used (That would be the second section). And in that section, we would start to burn Factoids from the original supply, prior to the M3 ... and in that scenario, the 73,000 monthly Factoids will be MORE than 10% of the supply. In fact, in the logical upward trend of that context, much more than 10%, as adoption progresses. And every month, more, how many more "original" Factoids will be needed for the needs of blockchain users).

My idea is that everything that exceeds the 10% that were initially raised, be distributed among the nodes that the community can activate - I believe that with the incentive of voting, but not economic -. At first, they would be tiny returns individually, but globally, growing, and creating a fundamental activity and protagonism among the tokens powers ... approaching them, as a collective - not individually, as we talk about individual returns and small - to the group of the active NOOs (which would always have, along with the other infrastructure expenses you mention, guaranteed 10% of inflation ... that in this scenario and with a price certainly much more considerable than the current one, understanding that they would be rewarded invaluable work to the success of FACTOM).

From that prism, a representation by tokens would be very simple and perfectly balanced, imho. And hence my comment on inflation, whose distribution I understand as fundamental in the future for an equitable expression and presence of the parties that make up the project (although I understand that what is tried here, as Niels says, is to reflect the expression of other external collectives to ANOs and guides from now on, which I think is very fair and considered ... so I will not repeat myself in that aspect in this thread - although I think it is fundamental for a balanced expression and to detach it from it, it would only create "patches" "Circumstantial and responses to the current situation and not to a long-term equilibrium, imho -). A greeting.
 
Secured
#22
Let's not make this a discussion about inflation. @PaulSnow explained quite well above how our inflation is different from a lot of other projects and mostly goes into resources that advance the protocol 🙂
Please, Niels ... could you tell me, if any, a thread where I can make progress on this inflation issue? If I have understood the process well, I believe this important issue ... but I do not want to interfere in the progress of this or bother anyone. Thank you.
 
Secured
#24
Hi,

As already stated in previous threads, I am not fond of allowing FCT holders to take part in any votings. But as it seems to be the consensus, then I'll try to provide a view on this.

It has correctly been mentioned here that the current limits are:
- Quantity of FCT per address
- Duration of holding
- Possible gaming solution by dividing the stake using straw-men
- The overall voting power allocated to the staking people

The tools and measures we have to help us to make decisions are:
- Total FCT supply
- Total market cap of Factoids
- Quantity of FCT per address
- Duration of holding
- Registration through ID on a centralized platform (subject to straw-man-ification)

Having to deal within the limits we have, and being realistic, we have to reduce to minimum the gaming possibilities, and any upside provided by such actions:
1/ we have to define strict rules to register new holders
2/ we have to define the minimum number of FCT per address that is allowed to vote
3/ we have to make the use of straw-men marginally beneficial


1/ we have to define strict rules to register new holders
Usage of IDs, with a picture of the people holding the ID, coupled with a specific message handwritten. A signature using the private key? IP location? This could be over-watched by a specific committee. This needs human control.

2/ we have to define the minimum number of FCT per address that is allowed to vote
Several solutions to set the minimal stake of factoids:
- Get it fixed (100, 200, 1000 FCT?)
- Get it dynamic:
  1. need of holding a given proportion of the overall FCT supply. An address has to have 1%, 0.5%, 0.1% of the total supply to be eligible to vote: we just have to divide the address holding by the total supply. Having a proportion P chosen means that only a maximal number of 100/P people can vote. People that don't meet the requirement can pool their FCT here.
  2. need of holding a given amount of USD in FCT. An address has to be valued at $1000, $2000, $10,000 to be eligible to vote: we just have to multiply the above by the total FCT market cap. Having a value V chosen means that the more FCT grows the more people can theoretically vote, as less FCT are needed to reach the minimum stake of FCT needed.

Having it dynamic allows us to keep more control over the meaning we give to this voting power threshold (minimum stake of FCT), and to get rid of the arbitrary fixed X FCT to be held. The duration of the holding can also be used here. You need to have been fulfilling the condition M months before the vote happens, for instance.

To avoid, or at least reduce any supply/price manipulation, rolling averages can be used in our calculations.

3/ we have to make the use of straw-men marginally beneficial
Let's define X as the minimal number of FCT to be held to be eligible to vote on one specific address. For every extra X FCT an address is holding, a portion of a vote could be granted to it. For example, 0.2 voting power could be added to your total voting power. It doesn't make the use of straw-men useless, but less effective while rewarding staking of FCT in a way which is not overwhelming. This factor can also be raised depending on the duration. The additional voting power can then be a function of both extra X FCT and duration.

Also, the fact that the minimal stake of FCT needed is dynamic makes it potentially hard to predict what amount will be needed until the next vote. This coupled with strict registration rules make the use of straw-men less and less relevant.

We have here a solution that kind of fits our limits, and to which we can give meaning, through the definition of the minimal FCT staking. And on top of that, to even further reduce any gaming risk and benefit, let's limit to a fraction of the overall total voting result: 10, 15, 20% allocated to FCT holders. The balance being left to other Standing Parties. Gaming the system will always be possible, but we have to make it the least appealing as possible while not deterring honest people from taking part in the process.

What do you think?

Note for another thread maybe: We have to determine what proportion of any vote we want to give to every type of SParties:
ANOs: X1%
EC usages: X2%
Guides: X3%
FCT holding: X4%

I believe we should have this order X(i) >X(i+1).
 

Chappie

Timed Discussion Bot
Secured
#25
We are now 18 hours into the discussion. If you have taken part in the thread, you may now make a motion to extend this Major Discussion by 72 hours or end this conversation by selecting the pertinent button at the top of this thread. This option will end when there are 24 hours left in the discussion.
 

Chappie

Timed Discussion Bot
Secured
#26
Elie Bonin has made a motion to extend the discussion. If someone seconds this motion by selecting the button below, a vote on the motion will start.

A majority voting yay will pass the motion and the discussion will be extended for 72 hours. This motion will remain open until the normal discussion period ends or a motion to end the discussion is passed by a majority.
 
Secured
#27
@Elie Bonin I think I'm very much on your wavelength on this.

We can mitigate the external influence of a particular area such as FCT holders by limiting their overall weight in the standing parties system. So for example, if the standing parties were worth the following:

ANOs = 25%
FCT Holders = 25%
Guides = 25%
EC Users = 25%

If I owned 50% of all the FCT then my vote would be worth 12.5% based on this system. Now I'm not saying that FCT holders standing should be worth 25%. In fact, I believe that to be able to figure out these numbers we need to model the distribution of FCT and EC users to get some sensible numbers. If we used the example above then it would likely be cheaper for someone to burn EC to gain standing then it would be to buy FCT for example, as a result, we would probably need to consider some kind of sliding scale where the greater the EC burn overall would increase its weight up to a maximum value.

On a final note, I believe its a HUGE risk to introduce standing parties voting into all parts of governance at once. I really believe we should introduce this slowly and carefully. We only really get one shot at this and we screw it up then the consequences could be devastating.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#28
I'm not sure I feel it is fair for standing parties to have a vote on the grant process because the money that goes to fund it has been donated by the ANOs. I wouldn't be against standing parties donating funds towards the grant pool if that could be an option in the future :)
I think you have this backward. The community and the EC users are very important to the ecosystem. ANOs have been deciding which project they want their share of the inflation given to but in the end the community and the EC users are the people buying up that inflation. If these economic actors are not there to buy up our inflation, our Factoids would soon be valued at 0.

Giving them a voice as soon as possible is the right and fair thing to do
 

Chappie

Timed Discussion Bot
Secured
#29
Paul Bernier has seconded the motion to extend the discussion.

A motion is now active at the top of this thread to vote if you want to extend the discussion. A majority voting yes will pass the motion and the discussion will be extended for 72 hours. This vote will remain open until the normal discussion period ends or another motion is passed.
 
Secured
#30
I think we need to tackle the expansion of the standing parties on two fronts; technical and governance.
  • Governance covers how much standing all parties have in the new system
  • Technical covers how we create a system which is robust enough to support the governance
I see that both of these discussions are happening simultaneously right now.

Personally, I would like us to discuss the governance of this extension of standing parties first then start to work on the technical detail. I'll, therefore, be covering the governance aspect of this extension in this post:

Percentage Standing
If we decide that FCT holders only have 3% of the standing (this percentage is a for-instance, not the percentage I am suggesting) then they would currently have about the same standing as a single ANO. Gaming would be less of an issue in this situation than if we had 25% standing for FCT holders. The percentage standing should, therefore, guide the robustness of the technical solution.

For me, <=5% requires a low-robustness technical solution, 5-10% requires medium robustness, and anything above 10% is really going to need some planning and thinking about.

My position is that we put FCT holders in at 10% and work on a reasonably robust technical solution to deliver this standing to the holders. EDIT: for the duration of this temporary measure.

Scope of Voting Rights
I believe that all standing parties should be able to vote on all matters that are put to a standing party vote. I feel there is no requirement to limit what votes each of the standing parties can participate in; this is because each standing party type's influence is already contained within their percentage standing.

Next Steps
I would like an agreement about the governance aspects before moving onto the technical aspects of delivering the expanded standing parties.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.