Approved Grant Factom Asset Token Protocol

What do you score this grant?

Have not voted

Guides Nic R Niels Klomp

Authority Nodes Consensus Networks Factable Solutions Factable Solutions HashQuark Kompendium Kompendium Multicoin Capital Multicoin Capital Prestige IT Prestige IT RewardChain RewardChain

  • Total voters
  • Poll closed .
Not open for further replies.
@MattO -- I can tell you that Factomize pays its developer far more than those rates.

Good developers don't come cheap and for good reason.
Is that an internal or external developer? In above posts you see $70 as highest rate also being posted as FTE, so that includes vacation/holidays. If you translate that to a yearly pay that roughly translates to 145K $

I am not giving my opinion on the above. But there is a difference in experience levels and amount of internal costs. You cannot just compare one developer with the other as their levels of expertise are different from each other as well as the amount of money overhead costs
Last edited:
Yes, we are shooting to internally have approximately 73% of wages paid out at around $30 an hour (dbgrow), 18% paid out at $50 an hour, and 9% paid out at $60 an hour. This averages to just over $35 an hour across those 3 ANOs over the next 3 months, and all other costs for the past few months will be entirely covered by the ANOs on this grant.

I extended the offer to both Adam and Paul for DBGrow to internalize more costs in order to pay them out higher wages as they both are working less total hours. They have both been rockstars on this project, and I want to make sure they can continue to work hard on FAT moving into the future. They both still have standing offers to shift some FCT back to equalize pay per hour.

It seems like you have been very frustrated with this grant process. That's understandable as there are a lot of great competitive grants, and a limited grant pool, which is stressful. Thanks for your continued engagement with us about our grant proposal.

The problem I have with very large grants such as this and Incs is that it isn't valued at working towards the future.
I’m not sure what you mean by this grant “isn’t valued at working towards the future.” This grant adds not just a protocol for launching tokens on top of Factom, but a public framework for standardizing and developing second layer token protocols and the systems to interact with them. We plan to build a thriving community around FAT. We believe that will add a lot of value to Factom itself.

It is also not covering any real costs, only your time. You don't actually NEED this money. Whereas some projects do NEED the funding to progress.
I’m afraid I have to respectfully disagree with you. Time is a very real cost. I don’t want to get into the economic theory of pricing skilled labor here, but I’m not familiar with any professional setting where time is not considered both a real cost, and fundamentally the most scarce resource. This is especially important as we are hiring multiple people to work on this technology, I cannot hire people and expect them to work for free.

We know that developing FAT and the ecosystem around it is a long journey, and we will continue to make sustainable sacrifices to make it the best platform to launch tokens, smart contracts, and other blockchain products that it can be. However, no one can work for free indefinitely and we have a much greater chance of success if we get support from the greater Factom community.

you should all be working off a min assumption of $20 FCT.
It sounds like you have some interesting ideas about how you would like to see the grant process improved. I think there will be a lot of conversations that follow this grant round about how to improve it. Let's put a pin in how to price out grants, and whether we should use current prices, past prices, or potential future prices. That was discussed early on and decided before the first grant round. At the moment we are all working within the grant process that we have today.

Now as proven by the fact you aren't liquidating the grant - this is indeed a FCT grab at low prices.
Again, I’d rather not get into economic theory here, but saving money is a tradeoff. Selling into a bear market isn’t a good position for anyone, other holders of FCT included. We are conscientious of this and you are correct that we are doing our best to minimize what we have to sell. If FCT appreciates we will stand to benefit from those efforts, just like anyone else who strives to work economically and save.

There are 4 companies involved in this grant. All of whom are contributing software engineers at below market rates. In fact, to date all contributions have been entirely on a volunteer basis, with no one expecting to be paid for their hours. Additionally, while we are trying to avoid liquidating FCT prematurely, you are mistaken about all of us not needing to sell any FCT. We do have costs to cover as businesses, taxes and engineering time included.

We are very aware that we cannot rely on the Factom Grant pool long term to support continued development of FAT. Our vision is to develop it into its own thriving ecosystem that complements Factom’s ecosystem. We fully expect that we will have to continue pushing development forward beyond the current scope past the end of the grant period. If we are all so lucky as to see FCT appreciate, the additional resources at these ANO's disposal will help us bridge the gap to additional funding sources while we continue to push FAT forward.

Now as proven by the fact you aren't liquidating the grant - this is indeed a FCT grab at low prices.
Another note here.

I believe your thought is that since we do not sell on an exchange, we do not need that money, is this correcct?

DBGrow has shown thus far an ability to be able to secure USD from FCT for DBGrow and this community, such as for the governance & legal review grant, without liquidating on an exchange. Doing so is a positive thing for the community as we are not selling into a thin bear market. I wonder why we should be punished for putting in the extra work to make sure we do not negatively impact the market when we secure our necessary USD? Can you help me see something I may be missing here?

Approving this grant would mean giving up Marketing, Exchanges, Core Dev amongst others. That's the real cost of this grant to the community - and its simply too much.

The community is pissed off because we all like FAT - we all wanted to support it - but this grant was unacceptable and now we're forced into a corner where we have to vote against.
This grant round requires us to all make some difficult choices and sacrifices. We see that there is just not enough funding for everyone. We have the second biggest grant and we realize the current size is a problem. As many other grants have done, we are working on a revised grant with a smaller scope and ask that sifts out pay for already completed items. We will have this published soon and we really appreciate yours and everyone’s time to review it and provide further feedback.
Hi everyone, as promised we have an update to the FAT Protocol grant. I will highlight the important changes as follows:

Reduced grant compensation by 40% as follows:

DBGrow: 31,250 to 18,750 FCT

Canoninical Ledgers: 12,500 to 7,750 FCT

Luciap: 6,250 to 4,250 FCT

Layertech: 6,250 to 3,750 FCT

Reduced scope as follows:

Reduced work to strictly the following 3 months
Removed FATIP 201 completion
Removed tutorial creation (Our specifications are very detailed though, and we will look to work with others to make things like tutorials when applicable)
Reduced scope of Wallet to a simple wallet and clarified what the wallet would be
Removed the GO RPC and CLI, keeping the JS RPC

We also moved fatd deliverable from an Alpha to a Beta version in all sections, as we believe we can deliver a fairly robust fat-deamon this grant round.

If you see any inconsistencies in the document, please let me know, they are most likely things missed in combing through the document changing things.

Thank you everyone for bearing with us during this tense and trying grant round. We truly appreciate all the feedback we have received, and we look forward to forging ahead with all of you to bring tokenization and smart contracts to the Factom Protocol.

I will be available to answer any more questions that anyone has. Thank you!


Not open for further replies.