Funded [FACTOM-GRANT-Factom, Inc.-009] Protocol Development Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Secured
#1
This project is a formalization of the proposed Inter-grant Continuity Plan that was
proposed on 2018-12-21. This bridges the gap that was introduced by a delay in
the community grant process. This is the first of two Factom, Inc. Protocol
Development grants that are being requested during this grant period.
https://factomize.com/forums/threads/factom-inc-inter-grant-continuity-plan-dec-feb.1423/


This grant covers 3 months between the expiration of the previous grant and the
beginning of the next one. The dates covered are Dec 9, 2018 - Mar 9, 2019.


The focus of this grant has been (and will continue forward) maintenance to get the
stability improvements over the past several months into Production. There is likely
to be some further cleanup maintenance in the remainder of this Interim grant
period. Hopefully towards the end of this period time can be spent on research for
how to revamp the control flows of how messages flow through the system in order
to make it more reliable. This will set the stage for spreading the processing over
multiple computers (sharding). We feel that upgrading the control flows is critical
since the maintenance overhead of the current codebase is high, and it is not
possible to shard with the current setup. These two parallel efforts (maintenance
and design) are covered under this grant, with urgent maintenance taking priority.


This grant was proposed as a Reduced Effort period back in December shortly after
the with a budget of $56,800 per month over 3 months equalling $170,400 .
Assuming a FCT price of 6.21 $/FCT would give a grant amount of 27,440 FCT for
the Factom, Inc. portion.
For the Sponsors and Transition Assistance, there is 600 FCT each for a total of 2400 FCT.
The grand total for this grant comes out to 29,840 FCT.



As required by document 153 that governs Factom grant round 2019-01: This is the thread for grant proposal [FACTOM-GRANT-Factom, Inc.-009] Protocol Development Continuation.
The review process starts at 2019-01-31 00:00, so please refrain from starting public review or questions before that time. If you notice clear errors in the proposal you can contact the author of the grant proposal directly.
 

Attachments

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
#4
Kind of nitpicky, but I see this grant goes all the way until march 9th. Originally this was supposed to be a grant that only filled in the gap in grant rounds caused by that large delay a few months ago. Having this grant go until march 9th means the next one starts on the 9th and goes until June 9th.

We are trying to bring the cadence of all grants (with the continuation grants), as well as the cadence of the rounds as a whole (every 3 months, with payouts happening around the 1st of the month which most people I've discussed with are taking to be the date of the start of the new round/end of the old round).

Might it make sense then to reduce this grant by a week so that your next development grant starts the same date as the rest of the grants this round? It may seem like a small thing, but it saves the grant pool 2k FCT this round, which is enough to fill entire other grants, like a core development project manager, or open-node enhancement + 5 marketing videos, etc.
 
Secured
#5
As a (self-perceived) Sponsor for Factom Inc.'s Protocol Development Continuation period of time, I can say that I was not aware of any title of Transition Assistant prior to reading this grant proposal. My understanding of what Inc. means here (and again, just my personal understanding; not speaking for Inc.), is that they may have contemplated me as a Transition Assistant to assist in the onboarding of Nolan and Valentin, as opposed to being a full-on Sponsor. Thus, there is some confusion here on my side relative to the (seemingly random) title.

This confusion could stem from the back and forth interaction between me and Inc. back in November 2018. I was a Sponsor for a couple of months, then wrote to Inc. that I no longer intended to be a Sponsor. Some time thereafter, Inc. posted a new Grant with my name still in it (to which, I understood to mean that I was being contemplated by Inc. as a going-forward Sponsor). When I asked Inc. on Factomize about this, Paul Snow replied that we had engaged in indirect communication and that Inc. did not want to take a position Paul's Response. I spoke shortly thereafter on the phone with Dominic (88mph), as well as detailed my thoughts publicly on Factomize as to what I would like to see if I remained as a Sponsor My Public Response Here, and thereafter I decided that I would remain as a Sponsor.

A few days after that, on our (what was then a) weekly Inc./Sponsor call, Nolan and Valentin were announced as additional Sponsors for Inc.'s Grants. When I asked about how Inc. perceived me (as Sponsor or not a Sponsor), Brian stated, verbally, that he valued my thoughts and opinions and felt that he was happy to still have me as a Sponsor [at least, this is how I remember it and understood it; Inc. may have meant otherwise].

I have attended all of our calls since this time, as well as coordinated a couple Sponsor-only phone calls with the other three guys (esp. as it related to discussing the topic of: potentially fixing/establishing a FCT price for the Inter-Grant Proposal -- to which Inc. remained relatively ambiguous or silent about when pressed for an answer on Factomize). The only time we received a somewhat clear answer on that topic, was during one of our recent, recorded meetings with Inc. where they described that, for risk mitigation purposes, waiting until one of the last possible points in time to fix a price would be most advantageous. I mention these last points as they directly relate to the Continuation Grant Proposal.

By the way, I don't mean to place blame in any manner towards Inc. There is confusion on my side of things, but I don't believe any party is at fault.

On another note entirely, I would like to reduce my personal compensation from 600 FCT's to 200 FCT's for this Grant Proposal, as I don't believe that 600 FCT's at $6 per FCT is equitable (but is excessive) for the work I put in. There are some Grant proposals currently that are asking for fewer than 600 FCT's, and I believe that what I perceive as surplus funding for my Sponsor/Transition Assistant involvement can be better served funding other Grants. I do not intend for my personal move here to be in any way construed as social pressure on the other Sponsors to do so. My preference here is to further fund what I believe is a highly critical and over-subscribed Grant round for the Protocol.
 
Secured
#6
Hi Brian,

Thank you for your application.
I am asking the same generic question of a number of ANOs submitting applications:
Assuming the grant is funded please break down what will be delivered by this grant proposal funding and what will be delivered by your ANO efficiency set at 50% over the next 3 months?
 
Secured
#10
Kind of nitpicky, but I see this grant goes all the way until march 9th. Originally this was supposed to be a grant that only filled in the gap in grant rounds caused by that large delay a few months ago. Having this grant go until march 9th means the next one starts on the 9th and goes until June 9th.
yes, the initial essential grants were considered started when the community accepted them with the votes on discord June 9, 2018.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wZFLtpMMaoPJ-95qxFOMhMDrepNAeQ02

So far we have been operating on a 3 month cadence from that date for anchor, oracle, and protocol development grants.

The ambiguity when we were proposing the continuation grant was because there was still a little uncertainty if all the dates were going to be hit with this grant round, etc.

We are trying to bring the cadence of all grants (with the continuation grants), as well as the cadence of the rounds as a whole (every 3 months, with payouts happening around the 1st of the month which most people I've discussed with are taking to be the date of the start of the new round/end of the old round).
The arguments I have seen for that are for accounting based rationales. Factom Inc has plenty of accounting overhead already which can handle non 1st of the month distributions of FCT. I would like to give enough lead time nowadays so that in the future if the grant process slips again by a bit, we aren't working without a grant in effect. I am willing to continue working at the reduced development pace for a little longer to give that buffer.
 
Secured
#11
Canonical Ledgers supports this proposal, but I would like to know what is a "Transition Assistant" and what role do they fulfill? Please also see my comments regarding sponsors on your other core development grant, thanks!
other thread:
https://factomize.com/forums/thread...inc-012-protocol-development.1563/#post-11455

As some of the confusion detailed above shows, Nic was putting in effort, attending meetings, providing feedback, etc. He continued to attend meetings even after resigning with an effective date date of Oct 12.
https://github.com/FactomProject/fa...cd96ab1f42d027833ce99822/state/grants.go#L218

https://www.factom.com/company/blog/grant-update-nov-2018/
> Sponsors emeritus Nic Robinette and Adam Levy also re-joined for the Nov 21 meeting.

https://www.factom.com/company/blog/grant-update-december-2018/
> with Sponsor Emeritus Nic Robinette as a spectator.

https://www.factom.com/company/blog/grant-update-january-2019/
> participated with Sponsor Emeritus Nic Robinette as a spectator.

Adam joined out of curiosity once after disavowing ever being a sponsor for the 2nd grant round.

Nic put more effort in than Adam, and it made sense to have his efforts compensated. Nic did more than act as a spectator this grant round, and added more value to the protocol through his actions. As for the title, it didn't seem appropriate to talk about Nic as a merely a spectator, when he did add value (and hopefully will continue to add value through the grant).
 
Last edited:
Secured
#12
Secured
#13
On another note entirely, I would like to reduce my personal compensation from 600 FCT's to 200 FCT's for this Grant Proposal
Sure, no problem. Thank you for your generosity.

as well as coordinated a couple Sponsor-only phone calls with the other three guys (esp. as it related to discussing the topic of: potentially fixing/establishing a FCT price for the Inter-Grant Proposal -- to which Inc. remained relatively ambiguous or silent about when pressed for an answer on Factomize).
Wow, I was not aware of this. This is a perfect example of how you have added value in the interim grant period.

I have been impressed with your initiative, especially recently. You are starting to provide far more value to the community than what a sponsor can. I am encouraged by your efforts and really hope you continue to add value to the community. The updates to the voting mechanisms are definitely appreciated. I envision day when the systems we are setting up will govern between giant multinational companies, which is so important that we get it right. I'm glad you are along with us on that journey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.