Withdrawn Proposal [LayerTech-001] Hackathon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Secured
#1
This is a grant for organizing community Hackathon events. An executive summary is provided below. Please read the attached application for more detail.

This proposal outlines hackathon as a part of wider marketing initiative for Factom ecosystem. Though the grant only layout how the first two hackathons (London and New York City) will be paid, the grant money will act as down payment to finance all subsequent Factom Hackathon events around the world, making them a self-sustaining community project.
The goals of the hackathon are to attract new developers and businesses to Factom ecosystem. To accomplish this, we will organize developer and corporate tracks in parallel and ensure infrastructures are in place to funnel leads as well as provide actionable follow up. In addition, hackathon will lay the infrastructure needed for local meetups and workshops. These events will be organized by local ANOs and hackathon participants generating dividend well after the main event is over.
 

Attachments

Secured
#3
Hello @xavierwjc!
We support your hackathons proposal.

Questions:
  1. Why organize 2 hackathons with so small time difference (less than a month)?
  2. Your project is very impressive, you covered a lot of details in it.
    As we have 2x FCT requests against grant pool size and some of your milestones are ended in 5 months since now, is it possible to split the payments for this grant into 2 parts: for this grant round & for the next grant round (fixed in $, recalculated in FCT for the 3rd GR) which I believe will be on Q1 2019?
 
Secured
#4
@xavierwjc Thank you for taking the initiative in posting this proposal. Recruiting new developers into the ecosystem is vital work.

Something caught my eye in your proposal:

Currently, our Discord is a mess. As a funnel where newcomers arrive to learn about Factom Protocol, they can easily get lost or lose interest. We need a more user-friendly portal to capture these hard-earned leads from Hackathons, meetups, workshops, and all other future marketing initiatives. Marketing Committee members have already initiated this discussion, but we need rest of the community to consent to reforming that critical community portal before major events like Hackathon occurs.
I am broadly in agreement with this position. Our current Discord is really only navigable to people already embedded within the community. What changes do you think we need to make in order to more easily convert leads generated by hackathons, etc?
 
Secured
#6
This is a great initiative indeed and the proposal is very well worked on and scoped out. As David said, there isn't enough FCT in the grant pool to fund all great projects so revisiting costs seems ideal to make this happen:
  1. Prize pools are too high, there is no reason to have them that high ($40,000 for both hackathons). They can be divided in half IMO thus saving $20,000. From your research of all of the other hackathons, what are the average prize pools if any? My research has showed that prize pools are not very common even rare. It can be $10,000 or even $5000 per hackathon which is most of what I found.
  2. Their is HUGE room here for creativity as well. Don't forget, you can offer USD, FCT or something else that can be thought of such as spots to present their project in upcoming conferences, introduction to potential ANOs for job hires, etc...
  3. Is this your first experience organizing hackathons? I tend to agree with David that it makes a lot more sense to have 1 hackathon for this grant round as you not only gain experience, you understand demand, see how many people you can bring into attendance and then prepare for the next grant rounds for a continuous hackathon proposal. So many things to learn from the first one and expectations to be set.
  4. Also, the most crucial part here is you also understand how to extract the most value from the hackathon from a practical perspective. Gathering leads, funneling interest to Discord, getting great devs jobs within our ecosystem, etc...
 
Last edited:
Secured
#7
As someone who was very active in the hackathon community during college and helped run the most recent Factom hackathon, I do believe this grant might need to be reworked in some areas to allow the funds to stretch futher (both in terms of the FCT awarded to this grant, and also that of the grant pool at large). That said, I 100% support the efforts and will personally volunteer to help run the event and development workshops. Here are my current thoughts:

It is very rare for hackathons to be run completely out of pocket, especially if we are shooting for a headcount of 200+ (what I saw in the proposal). It's my opinion that the grant pool should be used to bootstrap such community-building endeavors, not cover their costs in entirety. Most funding typically comes from corporate sponsorship packages that the organizers pitch to relevant companies that would benefit from attaching their face and resources to the event. These packages typically come in ~3 levels or so and range in the amount of perks: just having a booth at the event, speaking speaking slot at opening ceremonies, company logo on the hackathon shirts/posters/websites, being able to give their own talks, provide their own hardware to use, have their own company themed prize, be a part of the judging panel, having their own break-out room to conduct interviews if they want to use the event for recruiting, etc. My school's hackathon for instance had Bronze($1k), Silver($3k), Gold($5k), and then just one or two at the Premier($10k) and Partner/Co-host($15k) level. Granted that is for a larger hackathon with ~700 hackers and 800 attendees total, but you get the idea.

Not only does it provide a lot of easy to access resources, but also attaches a ton of legitimacy to the event. Almost no one has heard of the Factom Blockchain, let alone developer communities. I think it will really help boost interest if there are some real-world companies in attendance, thus showing that there are prizes to be won and also job opportunities to be had.

I also agree with the above posters that the prize pools is too high at this point. Most people participating will be completely new to Factom, and as such probably won't be creating much novel value in the span of the event. $5k,$3k,$1k overall prizes seem more reasonable to me personally, while allowing sponsors to have their own category prizes as well (best use of google cloud apis, best payments hack, best FAT protocol hack etc).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that I've gotten all that out of the way... I want to pose a deeper question: do we really want to be in the business of organizing entire hackathons just yet? Or would the money be better spent by being a high level sponsor at multiple hackathons?

This would still allow for developer evangelism, educational events/tracks, recruiting opportunities for ANOs, offering a single $1k-$3k prize per event for best Factom hack (a *very* attractive sponsor prize in most hackathons, trust me). All while also removing all of the other expenses like venue, food, travel reimbursement, janitorial, marketing, etc. This mainly goes back to the fact that at this point, we don't have that much developer mindshare to drive attendance. Instead of two expensive one-off events, perhaps by sponsoring a ton of other hackathons, being the only blockchain sponsor there, and continuously doing such events for an entire year, we might have better success at bringing developer talent into the community. I recently reached out to MLH about their league sponsorship options (a presence at every single college hackathon for a year) and will let you all know what comes of those discussions.

Again, I fully support these efforts, will be volunteering myself, and will be reaching out to the hackathon community to try to drive interest in whatever we end up doing. I mainly just wanted to get a discussion started since a strong developer community is arguably the single most vital aspect of an open source ecosystem like ours.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#8
It is very rare for hackathons to be run completely out of pocket, especially if we are shooting for a headcount of 200+ (what I saw in the proposal). It's my opinion that the grant pool should be used to bootstrap such community-building endeavors, not cover their costs in entirety. Most funding typically comes from corporate sponsorship packages that the organizers pitch to relevant companies that would benefit from attaching their face and resources to the event. These packages typically come in ~3 levels or so and range in the amount of perks: just having a booth at the event, speaking speaking slot at opening ceremonies, company logo on the hackathon shirts/posters/websites, being able to give their own talks, provide their own hardware to use, have their own company themed prize, be a part of the judging panel, having their own break-out room to conduct interviews if they want to use the event for recruiting, etc. My school's hackathon for instance had Bronze($1k), Silver($3k), Gold($5k), and then just one or two at the Premier($10k) and Partner/Co-host($15k) level. Granted that is for a larger hackathon with ~700 hackers and 800 attendees total, but you get the idea.
This is also our experience in the few hackatons we've been engaged in. As Sphereon we will be happy to be a sponsor to such an event.

Indepent of this grant, which I support in a reduced format (1 hackathon this round, 1 hackathon the next round, etc), the following addition:
Last year, and the coming year, the DutchChain foundation organizes the world's largest blockchain hackathon (or so they have claimed) with more that 64 teams in 8 tracks. It has and will be held in Holland in April next year. https://dutchchain.com/page/hackathon
We'll be happy to field and host a Factom team and arrange all logistics for this. I'll also contact the organizers to inquire about sponsor opportunities.
 
Secured
#9
First of all, I apologize for the late response. I had limited bandwidth last week due to the ANO Retreat. I also decided to hold off on responding until I have time to process everything that happen both publicly and privately regarding the grant process.

To be honest, I couldn’t decide whether or not to drop this grant proposal completely to free up FCT needed by other grant proposals and to focus more time on LayerTech business development. But after spending couple days thinking over all the arguments (outlined here), I feel that I owe it to the community to expand on the Hackathon proposal regardless of my decision. This way other people can build on it or adopt it as their own.
 
Secured
#10
@ilzheev
Why organize 2 hackathons with so small time difference (less than a month)?

1. The reasons for organizing two hackathons with small time difference are as follow:

a. Both Hackathons cover FinTech Week in NYC and UK, two of the biggest blockchain events in N.A. and E.U. Unfortunately, I can’t control the timing of both events.​
b. Even though those two events focus on FinTech, many corporations outside of FinTech will be in attendance, allowing us a great way to demonstrate Factom technologies. Especially when compare to other competing projects that are more pie in the sky ideas, we can demonstrate that our product works in production environment. (hence having two track schedule: developer and corporate)​
c. After NYC and London, I would like to organize couple more hackathons somewhere in Asia to coincide with our 4th ANO selection in order to attract Asian ANOs around summer 2019 (China, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, or Japan). I also would like to organize one in Silicon Valley during Fall 2019 to coincide with some large blockchain events that usually happen around that time (San Francisco, Palo Alto, or Mountain View). And if we have sponsors interested, I would like to target Moscow, Paris, Amsterdam for Winter 2019. So by getting the two Hackathons at NYC and London out of the way, we have a better control over the calendar to target other regions each quarter.​
d. By organizing two Hackathons during Spring 2019, we increase the number of potential corporate sponsors for future Hackathons. Let’s say we get 20 large corporate participants between the two events at NYC and London, that means if I get 20% of them (4) to commit to sponsor future events, that’s enough to pay for the Summer 2019 Hackathon. After summer 2019 Hackathon, I can draw on 30 corporations and increase the chance of sponsorship covering all cost for Fall 2019. So on and so forth. The figures can be changed, but by having larger starting base to play with, we increase the probability of sponsorship for future events.​
e. At the moment I have three leads to sponsor the two hackathons. If I can get couple more, we should be able to cover the cost of both events. Even if we only cover 50% of the cost of London and NYC, we still have enough money to pay for Summer hackathon. If we only do one event and we get 50% of the cost covered by sponsors, then I will need to come back to the community for more money to cover Summer event. Depending on the timing of the grant round and payout schedule, we might not get the fund quick enough to do Summer 2019. This uncertainty jeopardize not just Summer but will cascade to Fall and Winter events.​

As we have 2x FCT requests against grant pool size and some of your milestones are ended in 5 months since now, is it possible to split the payments for this grant into 2 parts: for this grant round & for the next grant round (fixed in $, recalculated in FCT for the 3rd GR) which I believe will be on Q1 2019?
2. I am open to alternatives, but I’m not sure if current rules allow what you suggest. I also want to keep it simple because organizing the events means paying for venue deposit ahead of time and promising the sponsors that the events will go forward regardless of other factors. Leaving some amount for next grant round is very dangerous considering the community priority might change and exchange price risk will need to be factored in. If we go back on our words with our corporate sponsors, not only do I burn my credibility with them, they also won't take Factom seriously in the future. I rather not chance that possibility. Even though sponsors will cover a lot of the cost, the fund allocated by grant proposal will be used to guarantee the events will go forward no matter what.

In term of this being 2x FCT requests against grant pool size. I figured we will have that issue. But submitting a “partially funded” grant proposal in anticipation of unknown objections means I will paint an incomplete picture of what these hackathons can achieve. As you can tell from my response above, there are lots of reasons behind what I submit. I rather paint the full picture and let the community decide instead of second guessing myself.

Also even if this grant proposal gets rejected because community prioritize other projects, my proposal and subsequent discussion will serve as basis for future hackathon events.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#11
Thank you for taking the initiative in posting this proposal. Recruiting new developers into the ecosystem is vital work.

Something caught my eye in your proposal:

Currently, our Discord is a mess. As a funnel where newcomers arrive to learn about Factom Protocol, they can easily get lost or lose interest. We need a more user-friendly portal to capture these hard-earned leads from Hackathons, meetups, workshops, and all other future marketing initiatives. Marketing Committee members have already initiated this discussion, but we need rest of the community to consent to reforming that critical community portal before major events like Hackathon occurs.
I am broadly in agreement with this position. Our current Discord is really only navigable to people already embedded within the community. What changes do you think we need to make in order to more easily convert leads generated by hackathons, etc?
@Alex

My problem with our Discord group is that it tries to accomplish four very different goals/purposes. And that cross pollination will cause problem regardless of how we restructure the Discord group. Four goals I identified are: tech discussion, governance discussion, newcomer education, fct-market price discussion/Inc bashing.

For the newcomers, we need a brand new Discord Group serving that purpose only (imo). This means contents and interaction there will be all education related. Its goal is to sell on those newcomers the power of Factom, then funnel them into other Discord group if they are interested. For example, tech people will then go into our Tech Discord to participate in test net, main net, core development, etc.

People interested in Governance, go into a Discord dedicated to governance matter. Right now more than 70% of our discussion at the current group is governance related. And we only have ANOs and Guides. Once other standing parties come into the picture, the amount of information related to governance will overwhelm tech and education related discussions. It is very very important to not let that happen because majority of people (especially new comers) don’t care about governance. Hell even most ANOs don’t care that much. And even if they do, they don’t have the bandwidth to participate because of the flood of information. We also have the Factomize Forum serving the same role in regards to governance discussion. So can also considering utilizing that to complement the new Governance Discord.

Lastly, current Discord Group is controlled by Inc. This cause problem from centralization perspective. Also they don’t moderate so toxic discussion at FCT-market spill overs to tech, governance, and any new educational channels. For example, look at how the new hackathon channel created for Chicago event was flooded with complaints at the same time we tried to engage developers. The toxic focus on Factom Inc will always be there because that is Factom Inc's Discord Group. I would advocate leaving existing group to Inc and recreate community made up of newcomers at another Discord group. If those old FCT-holder wants to join us at the new group, they have to agree to new moderation and expectation that Factom Protocol is not all about Inc bashing for the lack of better words.

Those are my thought process and I shared them with Marketing Committee to see if I’m wrong or people disagree. I want to bring this up to the wider community once the Marketing Committee has a consensus. It’s important in the context of the hackathon proposal because without structuring all of this correctly, it is useless creating events like hackathons, exhibits, and meetup workshops. We will just lose all of our newcomers. I saw that @DChapman created a thread to talk about restructuring the existing Discord group (link). I think it’s a step in the right direction, but the problems I outlined above will still remind. As one of the prerequisites to get the most out of our Hackathon events, we need to reform on how we capture and hold our leads.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#12
@DChapman

This is a fantastic initiative and I applaud your work. The reality is, we don't have enough FCT in the grant pool to fund all the fantastic initiatives. Thus:

1. Would you be willing to cut this down to one hackathon instead of the proposed two?
In answering @ilzheev’s question, I outlined why I proposed two instead of one event. Of course we can cut it down to one hackathon, but then we need to consider the effects:
  • Which one should we organize? If I pick NYC then people in EU will not see themselves benefiting from the event so will most likely vote against the proposal. If I pick London, then same thing will happen with NA votes. Even if this is a great community effort, self interest (especially short term) will dictate what we vote on.
  • We might lose sponsors who expressed interest in one location but not the other. Not a huge deal, but just something to consider.
  • As I mentioned to @ilzheev at 1D and 1E, having only one event will impact how we fund future hackathon events. So most likely I’ll have to come back for supplemental funding to continue hackathon initiative. Future grant rounds will be even more competitive than this round so I rather use the resource now to create a self-sustaining initiatives than to constantly fight for resource.
  • If I do cut down to only one hackathon, then LayerTech has to reserve the right to pick which one we organize. This avoid some of the game theory problem outlined above.
2. What is the bottom line FCT amount you would need to pull this off?
Whatever the London Hackathon is going to cost since that is the higher of the two events.

I do want to point out that Factom Inc. spent more on Austin and Chicago hackathons than this current proposal. (my own estimate) So my thought process is that if the community is willing to pay for those events as part of round 1 grant, than it's no brainer to fund the proposed events at London and NYC. Especially when they are larger in scope, have quicker return on investment, and aim to be self-sustaining.

I want to wait to see how Factom Inc adjust their grant proposal (link) before committing to any changes to this one.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#13
This is a great initiative indeed and the proposal is very well worked on and scoped out. As David said, there isn't enough FCT in the grant pool to fund all great projects so revisiting costs seems ideal to make this happen:
  1. Prize pools are too high, there is no reason to have them that high ($40,000 for both hackathons). They can be divided in half IMO thus saving $20,000. From your research of all of the other hackathons, what are the average prize pools if any? My research has showed that prize pools are not very common even rare. It can be $10,000 or even $5000 per hackathon which is most of what I found.

@liveanddie

1. It depends on the quality of developers you want to participate in this event. We can easily organize college hackathons targeting students at low cost. But the execution and end product will reflect that target audience. Half of the hackathon events are focused on corporate track to bring more corporate leads for ANOs. So if we do go down that road of low quality hackathon events then I suggest take out the corporate track. Otherwise you might give a completely opposite impression to corporate attendees about the capability of Factom blockchain.

This proposal serves as template for other ANOs to replicate hackathon initiatives. After reading the proposal, I already got an ANO who wants to organized a college hackathon lead up to one of the events (I don’t know if he wants his plan to be known so I’m not disclosing his name). You can easily take ideas from this proposal and do something cheaper.

Also these hackathons are targeting the FinTech Week in NYC and London. You’ll get a lot of competition for attention so it’s worth paying top dollar for those eye balls (both developers and corporate). In the context of getting our brand out there in front of our target audience, I believe it is worth it.

Lastly, the price quoted is significantly lower than what Factom Inc pays for their Austin and Chicago Hackathon. Especially when you factor in the extensive corporate track and possibility of business leads for all participating ANOs. I can’t speak to Inc’s specific cost, but for Chicago event along, they flew in 8 or 10 employees for the events. Adding on flight, housing, transportation, food and wage we are talking about signficant expense. If individual ANOs were to organize something of this magnitude, they will have similar cost structure as Factom Inc. Organizing these events as community initiatives cut down the cost dramatically so in the long run, this approach is more sustainable and provide better value for the community.

Their is HUGE room here for creativity as well. Don't forget, you can offer USD, FCT or something else that can be thought of such as spots to present their project in upcoming conferences, introduction to potential ANOs for job hires, etc...
2. Completely agree. I left out some of those ideas. Otherwise the proposal will be 50% longer and you guys will lose interest reading them. Some of the ideas I had is to use the hackathon event to:

a. Recruit and hire core developers
b. A place for ANOs to meet and pitch investors
c. Offer startup challenge based on Factom blockchain
d. ANOs recruit attendees for job hires
e. Factom community recruit attendees to apply as future ANOs
f. Encourage attendees to apply for grant pool
g. Offer part of price money in FCT to align our interests
etc.

Is this your first experience organizing hackathons? I tend to agree with David that it makes a lot more sense to have 1 hackathon for this grant round as you not only gain experience, you understand demand, see how many people you can bring into attendance and then prepare for the next grant rounds for a continuous hackathon proposal. So many things to learn from the first one and expectations to be set.

3. I admit I haven’t organized hackathon before. I have attended both Austin and Chicago hackathons organized by Factom Inc and spoke to participants on ways to improve future hackathon events. However, I do have experience organizing large multi-day conferences (200-500+). The proposed hackathon events are made up of multiple mini events so from organizational standpoint, it’s not too difficult. At both NYC and London, LayerTech has employees on the ground who can help organize leading up to the event. And we budgeted short term hires to reduce cost further. In future events (outlined in answer to @ilzheev #1C), we have either employees or partners on the ground who can help organize the event.

Also, the most crucial part here is you also understand how to extract the most value from the hackathon from a practical perspective. Gathering leads, funneling interest to Discord, getting great devs jobs within our ecosystem, etc...
4. To be honest, the whole point of the hackathon is not just about the hacking. Or even the business lead generation. The intangible value-added overlooked by people is that these events tie together all of our work in marketing, documentation, and core committees. Without an event like hackthon to ground ourselves, our various efforts to improve community outreach are abstract theories. Regularly schedule events like hackathon will force us to continuously adapt and capture the highest value from our leads. That’s why a lot of the writting in the proposal focused on lead generation and how to funnel interests to correct places. And making sure our community has the foundation ready to fully capture those values generated by hackathon and future events.
 
Secured
#14
@sam

It is very rare for hackathons to be run completely out of pocket, especially if we are shooting for a headcount of 200+ (what I saw in the proposal). It's my opinion that the grant pool should be used to bootstrap such community-building endeavors, not cover their costs in entirety. Most funding typically comes from corporate sponsorship packages that the organizers pitch to relevant companies that would benefit from attaching their face and resources to the event.
I agree with you. The proposed cost for both hackathons is not meant to pay for both events out of pocket. The goal is to get sponsors to pay for most if not all the costs. The proposed cost is a downpayment to ensure we can execute on the event regardless if the sponsorships fall short. The aim is to actually profit from these events and organize these events in a way that they become self-sustaining community initiative.

As I stated in the proposal, we plan to have multiple ways of generating revenues:
  • Corporate sponsors (pay for venue, pay for prize money)
  • Partners (cover parts of food cost by donation, commit manpower, cover material/marketing costs, hardware costs)
  • Speaking slots and booths
  • Recruitment opportunity for corporate attendees
  • Commission from business leads
All of those revenues will go to the general fund. Any left over will cover future hackathon events. The goal is to have these ~$90k continuously carry forward to pay for future hackathons.

Now that I've gotten all that out of the way... I want to pose a deeper question: do we really want to be in the business of organizing entire hackathons just yet? Or would the money be better spent by being a high level sponsor at multiple hackathons?
In regards to your deeper question. If the proposal is for a one time cost of organizing two hackathons, I agree that money can be better spent sponsoring other hackathons. I really like some of the ideas you suggested and think we should work together making them a reality.

However the advantage of having our own hackathon goes beyond the hacking. It is really valuable to have corporate track and have corporate attendees see how easy is it to integrate Factom technologies into their every day processee. There is only so much you can do with power point slides. It is much better to have them attend in person. Even better, have their corporate developers participate. The experience can be the difference between them choosing Factom vs other blockchain projects. If we sponsor other hackathon events, I’m not sure we’ll have the freedom to create that customized experience and sales funnel. We also need to compete with all other attendees for attention.

Maybe I am wrong and our community is not ready to organize hackathon. But as I think about 2019 and beyond, I think it is prudent to start sooner rather than later. Assuming all of the legal hurdles are resolved, by Q2 of 2019, we will be in dire need of new blood for our ecosystem. We will get to a point where we have trouble onboarding quality ANOs, attracting core developers, attract new businesses, etc. Even if hackathon doesn’t make sense right now Q4 2018, it will make a lot of sense when we get into Q3-Q4 2019 and beyond.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#15
@mboender

As Sphereon we will be happy to be a sponsor to such an event.
Portions of the hackathon events are designed with ANOs like Factom Inc and non-ANO like Sphereon in mind. Especially the corporate track where you guys can showcase your services and products to generate leads. Even if this proposal doesn’t get funded, I hope you guys copy this idea and execute your own version in your respected market. I still think it is cheaper to organize or participate in community organized hackathon instead of organizing your own. But that's a calculation that each ANO needs to make.

Even more importantly than organzing hackathon for the sake of having hackathons, I can see the events playing a crucial role in bringing all standing parties together. Once a hackathon gets organized near ANOs, we hope nearby ANOs continue to build up the community by organizing local meetups, workshops, etc. Sphereon's suggestion of Factom team for the Dutch Hackathon is a great example.
 
Secured
#16
There are a lot of great development grants out there. I think we also need to make sure we are focusing on end-users. At the end of the day, end-users are what will drive FCT/EC usage. The hackathon grant has the potential to onboard new potential end-users, which is vital.

Go Immutable supports this grant, but would really like to see the grant execute a single hackathon in NYC. If successful, we would hope to see Layer Tech apply for 3+ hackathons in grant Round 3.
 
Secured
#17
@MattO, thank you for your support. I agree with you that medium and long term, it is vital to start shifting resources to expose Factom blockchain to new users. Both developers and business end-users. Unfortunately, our ecosystem is not ready to sustain that shift in priority as evident in discussions spread across various grant proposals. Short term, we still need to focus all of our energy on core development and overcoming legal hurdles. Without those two roadblocks out of the way, ANOs won't be able to participate fully in the ecosystem. This means it would be futile to attract new developers or businesses generated by initiatives like hackatons.

Based on various scenarios (link), this hackathon proposal threatens community short term goal. To eliminate that possibility, LayerTech formally withdraw this proposal so community resource can be properly deployed in solving our short term challenges.
 
Secured
#19
I’d like to add a fine balance needs to be struck here. All the development in the world means squat if you cannot market it effectively. Our protocol is in dire need of marketing and if there is one way to do it, it’s through face to face interactions and networking. This is the second marketing initiative that was withdrawn in this round and it is disappointing. On the flip side, we need to have a stable product to be able to market it, so what I’m getting at is we need both and should value both equally. Let’s get the protocol stable enough so we can be proud to discuss what the Factom Protocol is providing the world versus what it’s capable of.
 
Secured
#21
Such hackathons are a great initiative and it's a pity to see the withdrawal of this proposal. As unfortunate as this is, I do believe the ecosystem will be in a better shape to support such efforts in the subsequent rounds and hopefully by then we would also have a bit more things to show off :)

I also want to say that Factomatic would be very happy to support and participate in any future hackathons organized in Europe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.