Vote In Progress Oracle Master - Grant Round 1, 2018

Was Oracle Master Grant Round 1, 2018 successful? (see scoring rubrick within the thread)

Results will be visible after the poll closes. Your vote is displayed below.
  • 0

  • 1

  • 2

  • 3

  • 4

  • 5

  • 6

  • 7

  • 8

  • 9

  • 10

  • Abstain


Results are only viewable after voting.
Secured
#1
This thread is being created for Factom Inc's Oracle Master grant from grant round 1 in 2018 so that success or failure can be determined as specified by Document 106 - Grant Success Determination Process.

Original Grant Proposal

I spoke with Factom Inc and will be initiating the success determination for this grant. As specified by Doc 106, I will provide a short summary and what Factomize will be scoring the grant. Voters may choose to use this information and/or review the grant in-depth by themselves to form their score for success determination.

Grant Summary

Exchange rates for FCT to Entry Credits are important in order to maintain a target price for entry credits of 1/10 of a cent. As determined by the Standing Parties and the Authority Set, the Oracle Master will record into Factom relevant market information to establish the trading price of Factoids.

As stated in the grant, the exchange rate should be updated within 8 hours of a 20% divergence or more from the target price and additionally, once a week the average token price must be considered to adjust for a shift in price of as much as 5%.

Factom Inc is paid 300 FCT / month for this service.

Performance

This grant paid out August 13th which I'll use as the start date. I spoke with Alex from Factoshi who maintains (but no longer displays) this data. He generated a .csv which we evaluated. There isn't sufficient granularity in the data to evaluate the 8 hour / 20% divergence. Additionally, these dates may be somewhat skewed as there have been no formal start or end dates for grants. The data for August 13th through October 13th can be found here.

Scoring

The following scoring rubrik will be used for this grant:
Exceptional (9.0 - 10.0) - Successful
Overachieved (7.0 - 8.9) - Successful
Achieved (5.0 - 6.9) - Successful
Underachieved (2.0 - 4.9) - Failure
Total Failure (0.0 - 1.9) - Failure
My Score

I believe this grant was sufficiently executed upon to receive a passing grade. Greater transparency into this grant such as when updates are done would be beneficial to the ecosystem. I do not believe there was any work done that would result in an "over-achieving" or "Exceptional" grade. As such, Factomize will be scoring this grant a 6 to fit within "Achieved (5.0 - 6.9) - Successful".

Per Doc 106, this vote will last for 5 days.
 
Secured
#2
@David Chapman May I ask why you put your opinion about the score in the opening post? My believe is that this influences people automatically :)

I wouldn't mind someone like you mentioning this if several people discussed it in a thread before. But right now you are facilitating a vote in which you at the same time voice your opinion/score in the same post.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#4
@David Chapman May I ask why you put your opinion about the score in the opening post? My believe is that this influences people automatically :)

I wouldn't mind someone like you mentioning this if several people discussed it in a thread before. But right now you are facilitating a vote in which you at the same time voice your opinion/score in the same post.
Because the process document requires that I do so.

The thread will be replied to by the initiator of the determination bringing attention to the poll, a link to this document, a summary of the grant performance, provide the below scoring rubric, and provide their own score based upon that rubrik as part of the summary:

Exceptional (9.0 - 10.0) - Successful
Overachieved (7.0 - 8.9) - Successful
Achieved (5.0 - 6.9) - Successful
Underachieved (2.0 - 4.9) - Failure
Total Failure (0.0 - 1.9) - Failure
 
Secured
#5
Thx @David Chapman Ok I believe that is an oversight in the process tbh. If the score would come from the recipient itself I believe others would not be influenced by it that much. If the facilitator is allowed to post his review, whilst others vote without seeing anybodies vote I believe people will vote alongside the facilitator. I think I should not have mentioned my findings with this grant to see how it would play out. But let's have that discussion in a separate thread ;)
 
Secured
#6
Hi David,

Thanks for following this new procedure.
I appreciate this grants evaluating process.

Based on these numbers ( and the associated granularity) and the criteria which are quantitative, it looks like there were several consecutive days where the 20% target has not been reached (mainly end of September).

Moreover, if you display/calculate the ratio FCT/EC, which is the value really updated by the grantee, this ratio seems to have been updated 6 times over the period.

Hard to get firm conclusion with daily data but it looks like.

Would be good to get feedback from the grantee anyway.