Question for Factable Solutions from Colin Campbell

Michael Lam

Core Committee
Core Developer
Factable Solutions
@Colin Campbell , Some of these questions are rhetorical and leading, however you ask three questions, so here are our thoughts:

1) We are not in favor of a rebrand, however we would support it under consensus.
2) The question implies that some ANOs are actively working against each other or the protocols interest. I don't believe for a second that any ANO is actually doing this. I think we have some absent ANOs, and I think we have passionate people who disagree on direction, but I do not think any ANO is actively working against others or the protocol as your question implies. Factable Solutions will continue to work for the improvement of the protocol both as a team and also individually as needed. We will provide our opinions and input to push the entire protocol in the direction we believe is the correct direction (not being a 'yes man' team), however, when consensus decides a direction, even if we don't agree with it, we will do our best to make it successful. That is the essence of being a team player.
3) This last question is a bad question. It assumes many things. If you'd like to rephrase it into something that is answerable, we'll be happy to provide an answer to it.
 

Colin Campbell

Federate This
Thanks Michael. I do personally believe some would happily watch the protocol wither and die rather than coordinate an effort. It’s interesting to read ANO reactions to being pushed out the shadows.

And sure, the last question is:

Do you think the current plan is working out and a general market bull run will obtain us the resources we need?
 

Michael Lam

Core Committee
Core Developer
Factable Solutions
As for your last question, I don't think there is much of a master plan. For the most part ANOs seem to be doing what they think (whether mistaken or not) is important. I'm trying to push the core committee to produce a technical priority list for the 2020 year to at least provide some cogent direction for the protocol, show that some thought is being put into some type of strategic vision, although I'm not sure I've convinced the committee to do this. It would be nice to see something out of the marketing committee as well (although that seems to be dissolved). Because there isn't even a plan, I can't even say what resources are needed to complete it or whether we are on track. Additionally it makes the grant rounds more difficult to judge because you can't frame the grant in the context of solidified written goals. As much as people want or like decentralization, we need the committees to develop some type of vision to push the ecosystem in the right direction. Otherwise we are reliant on some random ANO to hopefully hit upon something, which isn't a great position to be in, but that's how I view the situation right now.
 
Top