Priorities for the Factom Protocol - non-technical areas

Mike Buckingham

Website Committee
Governance Working Group
In the parallel thread by Hinamatsuri here a discussion has been initiated to set out the protocol priorities. This is particularly important at this time. A time when our governance is undergoing change, the guide role has been removed, we face a very depressed FCT price, a number of ANOs are struggling and some have left the ecosystem. It coincides with another grant round when we have to ask ourselves what we should focus on.

We have been self-critical about lack of direction and agility. One, hopefully simple, approach to addressing some of these problems is define our priorities for the purpose of guiding both our investment through grants and the effort we put into the ecosystem. This is something that can be revisited whenever we require.

The parallel thread initially aimed to cover all areas but it was decided that it may be better to allow that thread to concentrate on technical matters. Therefore this thread will address everything that can be broadly described as non-technical.

As per Hinamatsuri's method: please make your suggestions here as a prioritized list. The list will be condensed into a spreadsheet which should help us in the coming grant rounds amongst other things. An individual submission will carry a top priority of 15 points, the second 14 points and so on. Given that this may comprise certain groups of suggestions (e.g. Marketing, Governance) then it may be appropriate to do this by logical group which could naturally align with the committees and working groups. Should this be required the spreadsheet analysis will make this clear.

Some areas may well be contentious, this is not the place for debating the rights and wrongs, instead please simply provide your considered views on what is important by providing your list.

There will be two counts. One for everybody and one for standing parties, because only standing parties vote for grants. As standing parties might have several members, only the first representative of a standing party providing input will be counted.

I will let others start, but I will also contribute myself. The first edition of the spreadsheet will be pulled together within 2 weeks.

If we require a formal vote that can be arranged in due course.
Last edited:

Mike Buckingham

Website Committee
Governance Working Group
In the absence of other contributions about non-technical priorities, here are my thoughts:

Outward facing(Marketing, Web site)
  1. Marketing strategy & execution built around a very clear message
  2. Revised web site
  3. Brand revise/refresh
  4. Rationalise communication channels
  5. AMAs
Standing party enlargement
  1. Extend standing parties with appropriate voice/influence in the protocol
Token price
  1. Exchange listing
  2. Staking
  1. Non-profit
  1. Objective ANO requirements (or at least well considered subjective ones)
  2. Strengthen and make accountable committees/working groups
  3. On-chain voting
  4. Resolution to Factomize sale
  5. Upgrade of Factomize

    Please note: following success of Factomize sale grant any replacement for Factomize is not required and my list has been amended accordingly.
Last edited:

Mike Buckingham

Website Committee
Governance Working Group
Hi Fillip,

Let me start by saying that in my opinion Factomize is a great asset to the protocol which enables focused, structured discussion and decision making, something a good many other protocols must envy. Is it the only solution to our needs? I suspect not. Could it be improved? Yes, like so many things, it can be improved.
The issue here is one of timing. I'd drafted my original post before the grant round had concluded & wanted to allow the option in the event of Factomize not being sold for us to be able to access an alternative.
Given the Factomize sale grant round success that is now not required & I'll happily edit the above post to reflect that.

I'd be interested in your thoughts about non-technical priorities.