Question for DBGrow from Niels Klomp

Chappie

Factomize Bot
@DBGrow,

@Niels Klomp asked the following question:

As BIF we are asking all ANOs these questions.

  1. What type of parties would you see the protocol attract as users?
  2. Do you believe current governance to accommodate that?
  3. What is your take on current standing parties and types? Anything needing to change?
  4. Can you mention anything about decisiveness and decision making as well as direction?
  5. Do you believe you are qualified to vote on every single thing?
  6. Do you believe large institutions and governments could use the protocol with current governance as is?
  7. Do you believe parties can make long term commitments towards the protocol at this time?
  8. Do you believe you are doing everything in your power to address any concerns about the above?
 

Julian Fletcher-Taylor

DBGrow
Exchange Working Group
Marketing Committee
Documentation Committee
Legal Working Group
1. Enterprise and government. Once the protocol becomes more mainstream, could be anyone, as its so easy to work with conceptually.

Anything with high data load. Doc management, NFTs, VCs, DIDs, Supply Chain, etc.

2. It does okay, its in its infancy though. It needs to keep maturing as the protocol grows.

3. Definitely need to add FCT holders and EC burners, I think standing based on grant successes (a function of size + score of grant) as well.

4. The protocol needs more leadership, more decision making, and a stronger direction, and where it lacks this I believe is a function of not having the right resources.

5. Our core team that is involved with the ecosystem is fairly diverse, we have people representing business development, governance, technical, marketing&UX, Scientific, legal, etc. We believe we are pretty well situated to form opinions on most topics. We would, though, like eventually to have a liquid democracy type standing system where you can delegate votes for specific categories of topics.

6. I believe if so, they would need to be through a partner that knows the protocol and governance well. I dont think its at the stage yet where a large entity could stumble upon the protocol, jump in, and feel comfortable. Through the right partner though, yes.

7. If they have the right strategies in place and the right vision for how they will use the protocol, then yes.

8. Doing everything in our power to push the protocol forward, but not doing everything we can for pushing governance forward. Did that a year ago, but right now I believe that while it is very important, it is secondary to some other needs of the protocol.
 
Top