Funded [FACTOM-GRANT-DBGrow-Luciap-Canonical Ledgers-002] FAT Protocol Development Grant II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Secured
#1
We are seeking 12,700 FCT across DBGrow, Canonical Ledgers, and Luciap to further development of the Factom Asset Token Protocol, a highly efficient and flexible pure data tokenization protocol built on the Factom protocol. This protocol is built fully open source, to be owned, monetized, and developed on equally by the entire Factom community, ecosystem, and beyond. We view it as a true upgrade to the Factom protocol and ecosystem. We will push the FAT Protocol to a production ready system with this grant.

Update: Updated grant to include Indemnification waver + removed Grant Template title
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Secured
#2
Thank you for your proposal.

This is a generic question I ask in each grant thread.
This is currently the 3rd grant round. I consider that one of the very important criterion to select a grant (apart from its potential value) is the capacity of the grantee to deliver in time what it pledged. Therefore past grants can be used as an indicator.

If you did receive grants in previous rounds, could you please fill the following fields? This would increase transparency and help the standing parties to select grants.

- Have you, or one of your partners, previously received grants : Yes/No. If No, then you can stop here :)
- List of grants received : grant X1 from round Y1, grant X2 from round Y2...
- Status for each grant : grant X1/Still ongoing or Completed, grant X2/....
- Description of the work accomplished so far and Links supporting it : Discord Group/Factomize thread/Github/Reports/...
- Description of the residual work to be completed : XXXXXX

Thank you for your cooperation.
 
Secured
#3
Thats a great question Matthias

Yes
Governance & Legal, Website, Factom Asset Token Protocol

Governance & Legal: Governance and Legal work for the factom ecosystem, done at no profit/salary alongside the Legal Research Working Group. All deliverables in original grant are completed, but we strived to work as efficiently as possible to save some funds for the creation of a foundation, which are still available so this grant is ongoing in a sense. The work will also surely always be ongoing since it’s doubtful we will stop working on governance and legal anytime soon.

A selection of our update threads:

https://factomize.com/forums/threads/governance-legal-review.669/

https://factomize.com/forums/threads/legal-research-working-group-update-jan-2019.1454/

https://factomize.com/forums/threads/legal-update-decentralization-trademark-neutral-website.1088/

Website: Small grant to cover some outside developer costs. First version of the website was completed, now we are planning out the second version. We actually are in the process of hiring a new web developer who should begin work next week, and will be fully dedicated to building out the factomprotocol website to its final form, especially focusing on ecosystem and developer portals.

DBGrow, Luciap, and Canonical Ledgers

Factom Asset Token Protocol: In grant round 2, all three ANOs on this grant put forward the first Factom Asset Token development grant. Huge amounts of work have been completed, all tasks are on track for completion, and we are nearing delivery of a full release of an alpha version of the FAT protocol and associated technologies. Still left on this grant is finalizing all modules for initial release, some updates to a couple FAT Standards, and a releasing the updated first version of the whitepaper.

For more information on our progress, please see:

Our update thread,
https://factomize.com/forums/threads/factom-asset-token-protocol-grant-update-thread.1380/

Our FAT Discord,
https://discord.gg/TGX2Pj
 
Secured
#4
Hi @Matthias Fortin

- I was also involved in the on-chain voting grant at the initial round.
-That grant as a whole is not finished but the deliverables I was responsible for were finished in line with the timeline (end of October). You can find the detail of the specific deliverables assigned to me here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j_UNJngDERP-4_Xoz3qqkydQl-tjpUIotQLzEV_4Nrs/edit
- Proof of work:
- Nothing on my side. I'll be helping out during the final testing campaign with MFW UI though.

If you have any more question I'll be happy to answer.
 
Secured
#6
Thats a great question Matthias

Yes
Governance & Legal, Website, Factom Asset Token Protocol

Governance & Legal: Governance and Legal work for the factom ecosystem, done at no profit/salary alongside the Legal Research Working Group. All deliverables in original grant are completed, but we strived to work as efficiently as possible to save some funds for the creation of a foundation, which are still available so this grant is ongoing in a sense. The work will also surely always be ongoing since it’s doubtful we will stop working on governance and legal anytime soon.

A selection of our update threads:

https://factomize.com/forums/threads/governance-legal-review.669/

https://factomize.com/forums/threads/legal-research-working-group-update-jan-2019.1454/

https://factomize.com/forums/threads/legal-update-decentralization-trademark-neutral-website.1088/

Website: Small grant to cover some outside developer costs. First version of the website was completed, now we are planning out the second version. We actually are in the process of hiring a new web developer who should begin work next week, and will be fully dedicated to building out the factomprotocol website to its final form, especially focusing on ecosystem and developer portals.

DBGrow, Luciap, and Canonical Ledgers

Factom Asset Token Protocol: In grant round 2, all three ANOs on this grant put forward the first Factom Asset Token development grant. Huge amounts of work have been completed, all tasks are on track for completion, and we are nearing delivery of a full release of an alpha version of the FAT protocol and associated technologies. Still left on this grant is finalizing all modules for initial release, some updates to a couple FAT Standards, and a releasing the updated first version of the whitepaper.

For more information on our progress, please see:

Our update thread,
https://factomize.com/forums/threads/factom-asset-token-protocol-grant-update-thread.1380/

Our FAT Discord,
https://discord.gg/TGX2Pj
@Matthias Fortin, for complete transparency, I should add that I was the Chair of the Exchange Committee when it received a grant last round. Canonical Ledgers itself was not involved other than through me and obviously it was all funding for the committee with CL not receiving any money from it, but wanted to mention it as that's the only other grant we've been involved in other than what Julian listed above. I have more details for you in my answers to your questions on the Exchange Committee grant thread.

Edit: The Exchange Committee received TWO grants last round (I forgot about the 26 FCT one) but the same details apply to both. No profit for CL in either of them.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#7
Hey FAT development team!
De Facto supports this grant.
I suppose some works, that were cut in the previous grant round, are needed to be developed now to complete FAT dev.

So I have some questions:
1. What initial amount of FCT tokens you have requested in the previous grant round?
2. How many FCT tokens you have already received on development? (in the previous grant round)
3. Have you converted any of tokens already received?

I'm asking this because the huge windfall of the previous grant round.
Just want to check if the calculations for 12,700 FCT in this grant round suits the initial requested amount for FAT development.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#8
I'm asking this because the huge windfall of the previous grant round.
To avoid contentiousness like last round, I think it is important we all make sure we are on the same page regarding the word "windfall." We don't want to get caught up in semantics.

In english, the term "windfall" is typically associated with making large, usually unexpected profits ("windfall profits")
Screen Shot 2019-02-04 at 12.21.33 PM.png


The FAT protocol grant was a very large recipient of FCT last round. However, that does not mean it is a "windfall." it simply means they received a ton of FCT. Now, if they only did 5K FCT's worth of development, then yes it would be a "windfall."

With that being said, I applaud @Anton Ilzheev for holding DBGrow and Canonical Ledgers accountable in regards to how the FCT was spent last round and if their FCT ask this round is justifiable. As a community, we need to be doing this for every continuation grant.

Per my above post, I obviously 100% support the FAT protocol endeavor and feel the amount of FCT they have received in regards to what they are delivering to the community is a phenomenal deal for the community.
 
Secured
#9
@Matt Osborne but the windfall profit has a place.
The first grant was calculated with ~$4.5 per FCT.
Even if there was no conversion of any of received funds, at current FCT rates it's about 30% more in USD.
So what's the reason of seeking additional 12,700 FCT if there is a windfall profit from the previous grant round?
I'm not against this grant, but I have concerns about the calculations & why 12,700 FCT required to finish the work.
I suppose there should be lower numbers, so I asked team to explain.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#10
@Matt Osborne we should not approve/disapprove grants only by its names.
The same thing is about Core Developers now. Everyone repeats "we need core devs – it's good – I support it" as a mantra, but only few people ask questions about coordinating of works, about grant updates, about risks, accounting and etc.
No core dev grants should be approved without answering this questions. But a lot of standing parties continues blindly support it, because off "everyone supports".
Sorry for offtop in your grant thread, Julian :)
Still waiting for the response from FAT team.
 
Secured
#11
Hi @Anton Ilzheev , happy to answer the question as I understand it.

I hadn't even thought about this question, but last grant round we reduced by 40%, fct are now worth 30% more, so I think that answers that question. As for how many FCT sold, this is not the kind of thing we should be digging into grant applicants about. Grant applicants don't need to be good traders, they need to be able to take the value granted to them when grants are accepted, and turn it into the deliverable they state in their application. I will tell you that we sold some, but not enough, as we said in our application that we wouldnt be selling most of the fct immediately and we stuck to that. In this grant round we are requesting what is needed to properly deliver this protocol.

If you review this grant you can see that it isn't to finish things that we reduced in last grant. We actually Added things to the last grant part way through: https://factomize.com/forums/threads/factom-asset-token-protocol-grant-update-thread.1380/#post-9304

The last grant spelled out a creation of the FAT protocol to an alpha/beta level: https://factomize.com/forums/threads/factom-asset-token-protocol.1054/

We did that successfully, and then as I said above, even added some extra deliverables to it after the grant round.

Now its time to go the last sprint to bring this protocol from an alpha/beta level to something we can feel comfortable building production applications on (And as a developer, I know you understand that getting to an alpha level of your software is only half the battle) . That, along with some additional deliverable to make the protocol more usable are the focus of this grant.

Thanks for the questions.
 
Secured
#12
@Matt Osborne we should not approve/disapprove grants only by its names.
The same thing is about Core Developers now. Everyone repeats "we need core devs – it's good – I support it" as a mantra, but only few people ask questions about coordinating of works, about grant updates, about risks, accounting and etc.
Hi @Anton Ilzheev . We agree. That's why I wrote the following:
Screen Shot 2019-02-04 at 1.03.07 PM.png


Screen Shot 2019-02-04 at 1.03.12 PM.png
 
Secured
#14
Thank you for your application.

We appreciate your response to Anton, and based on it we also believe 12.700 FCT is a fair price.

We have some follow up questions:

- You write in the project description that this grant will pay for "the next big push to bring the FAT Protocol to be fully production ready."
--- Is this the main deliverable from this grant? So when it is finished the FAT protocol will be "fully production ready"?

- You write that you will prvide "FAT Courtesy Nodes".
--- Could the Factom Open Node system be leveraged for this? Considering it is load balanced and provide redundancy?

--- Will the FAT wallet support the Ledger Nano S or other hardware wallet?

--- What kind of support framework will you set up for FAT? Will you bring online a portal with a ticket system, or utilize Discord/mail?

We believe that the FAT protocol is bringing a lot of excitement to the Factom protocol/ecosystem - thank you for your work so far :)
 
Secured
#15
Great questions.

- Yes, the main deliverable is bringing it to production quality. What this means is not that the protocol is done being developed, a tokenization protocol like this requires continual updating and development. What it means is we have gotten to a level of assurance that there are not major bugs, or breaking changes that need to be made, that we feel comfortable bringing production systems live on the FAT protocol.

- It could be, I thought about this a bit but would need to look into that a bit more. There was concern about rate limits on the open node system being hit during the initial sync of FAT nodes connected to the system, after that it should be fine though. We'll have to talk that over a bit.

- This version of the FAT wallet will not support hardware wallets, but FAT tokens are compatible with hardware wallets, so this is a definite todo in the future for one of us or another team working on wallets like MFW or TFA.

- Thats a good question... So far we've just been working with other devs using github issues + lots of discussion through Discord / different chats. I would be totally open to adding any kind of efficient formal system like that if the other devs are. We like helping with issues, we have learned a ton from people using FAT already.

Thank you, we have really enjoyed working on FAT and seeing it come to fruition.
 
Secured
#16
Thanks for the continuation grant.

I'm just curious why you chose $5.5 as a benchmark, most other grants are pegged at $6 - like at the time this grant was applied for.

Your previous grant stated not more than 2500 FCT would be liquidated from DBGrow's 18,750 FCT received.

DBGrow: FA3HSuFo9Soa5ZnG82JHqyKiRi4Pw17LxPTo9AsCaFNLCGkXkgsu.

Canonical Ledgers address provided for the grant was never populated:

FA3VyrJkTFuSCzRaJC41sdG4XmpBWZWreYXsK2G1SMr3xnqwmuMd


I'll support the grant due to the importance of the work being done, but hope the transparency improves going forward.
 
Secured
#17
Hi @Colin Campbell , thanks for the support.

I have to respectfully disagree regarding lack of transparency.

Re $5.5 instead of $6: Looking through the other grants, we seem about 50/50 between using those two benchmarks. I, though, was one of the people pushing for the guides to recommend a specific benchmark so that everyone could choose to use a single benchmark, be on the same page, and increase transparency. I'm clearly not trying to avoid transparency, and for the sake of transparency and everybodies ability to better judge this grant vs the grants that used different benchmarks,

At a $5.5 benchmartk:
Total: $69,850
DBGrow: $30,250
Canonical Ledgers: $22,000
Luciap: $17,600

At a $6 benchmartk:
Total: $76,200
DBGrow: $33,000
Canonical Ledgers: $24,000
Luciap: $19,200

Re liquidation and DBGrow's addresse: We have always strived to liquidate as few fct as possible while the markets are poor (though it seems you cannot win here, since grantees were also being judged on having "windfall" payouts last round that would be irrelevant without liquidation, except to land the grantee a large tax bill).

I'm not sure what posting the addresses here implies, or how much digging you have done around the address provided. If you do you will see that there are at least 16,250 FCT (18750-2500) that have entered that address, and never touched an exchange address. And that is even given that market conditions drastically changed after grant payout, and the point was to avoid market selling during a poor market condition.

A last note, even if more had been sent to an exchange, just because tokens are transferred through an exchange address does not mean they are liquidated on market (its a normal practice to route through an exchange to obfuscate for private buyers), and just because fct never hit an exchange address does not mean they were not sold OTC.

I appreciate the continued support even given your potential worries, and we will continue to strive for a high degree of transparency.
 
Secured
#18
Thanks for the continuation grant.

I'm just curious why you chose $5.5 as a benchmark, most other grants are pegged at $6 - like at the time this grant was applied for.

Your previous grant stated not more than 2500 FCT would be liquidated from DBGrow's 18,750 FCT received.

DBGrow: FA3HSuFo9Soa5ZnG82JHqyKiRi4Pw17LxPTo9AsCaFNLCGkXkgsu.

Canonical Ledgers address provided for the grant was never populated:

FA3VyrJkTFuSCzRaJC41sdG4XmpBWZWreYXsK2G1SMr3xnqwmuMd


I'll support the grant due to the importance of the work being done, but hope the transparency improves going forward.
Hi Colin,

Indeed there was some kind of oversight here where the Canonical Ledgers payout address wasn't updated in the final version of the grant. My apologies for that. The actual payout address was: FA2nBeBX75R7ECdhZS61DLpP5apaS32zwSYQ7aRkahwAjy5bryFo.
 
Secured
#19
I believe the work done here is top notch. I believe that we should allocate resources based on the value we believe they add to the community, and we should hope that this project (and others working hard on the protocol) are raising the value in and to the market. If that means someone holding their tokens gets to liquidate at a higher price, then bully. That is really what we want anyway.

I am certainly in support of this grant.
 
Secured
#21
I believe the work done here is top notch. I believe that we should allocate resources based on the value we believe they add to the community, and we should hope that this project (and others working hard on the protocol) are raising the value in and to the market. If that means someone holding their tokens gets to liquidate at a higher price, then bully. That is really what we want anyway.

I am certainly in support of this grant.
Thank you Paul, we appreciate it. It's been exciting bringing this solution to the factom protocol and seeing the response in and out of the factom community.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.