Question for Factomatic from Colin Campbell

Chappie

Factomize Bot
@Factomatic,

@Colin Campbell asked the following question:

We're asking all ANOs this question:

Are you able to take part in a relaunch of the protocol under a new name? Are you willing to work as a team instead of against each other to promote the protocol and gain the resources needed? Or do you prefer to do nothing and hope for a miracle?
 

Valentin Ganev

Factomatic
We do not feel that a rebrand is what will move the needle. The days when changing your logo, name, ticker and producing shiny marketing materials resulted in renewed interest or an increase of the token price are long gone. Not doing a rebrand is also very different from "do nothing and hope for a miracle" in our view.

The only thing that can produce a meaningful impact is adoption. We need to be putting money behind strategically chosen areas and applications and a portion of these funds should be allocated to proper marketing for these. This is the kind of team work we would like to see going forward and we're, of course, happy to participate in such an effort.

On a separate note, I'm not sure why this question is being asked in the Standing system. It doesn't belong here and I feel a more appropriate way to gauge ANO sentiment on this would be a thread with a vote in one of the sub-forums.
 

Colin Campbell

Federate This
It does belong here. If an ANO prefers to keep a gravy train going that is clearly not working, that should be widely understood by standing parties.

I'm interested in giving standing to the people who want to further the protocol, not just their bank accounts.
 

Niels Klomp

Guide
BI Foundation
Core Committee
But your question is 2 things which aren't the same.

You ask ANOs to work together instead of against eachother. That part is fine and most will agree.

A separate question is whether they want to do a rebrand or not. Those ones aren't necessarily aligned. People can have good reasons to be opposed to the rebrand, but still very much want to work together.

I'm interested in giving standing to the people who want to further the protocol, not just their bank accounts.
By posing 2 seperate questions, I almost read that as you are trying to force people into your vision and providing standing as leverage. That is a really dangerous road. Not to mention that I think the last part of your sentence is the last people are doing.
 
Last edited:

Niels Klomp

Guide
BI Foundation
Core Committee
So then the question becomes. If I have good reasons to vote No on the rebrand at this time, without being able to disclose the exact reasons, or even have no reason at all, but I am willing to work together, do I have to "fear" my standing?

All I am saying is that leveraging support/removal of standing as a tool to seek alignment on opinions is very dangerous and IMO that is not the intention of the whole standing system. I hope that is not what we are seeing here.
 

Colin Campbell

Federate This
You're adding dark twists to simple questions in a thread between Federate This and Factomatic. It's very dangerous that you are inserting yourself here so vehemently.

The entire point of this section is to ask questions in order to help determine standing. That's the system. ANOs views and motives are obviously part of that.
 

Niels Klomp

Guide
BI Foundation
Core Committee
Nope, I am pretty sure that is the background of the question from @Valentin Ganev, but he can answer that himself.

Standing is about whether entities are doing good things for the protocol. Not about having the same views on everything. Heck, I would go as far as say that you need some friction and different views to make sure it becomes a success

Without friction no shine.
 

Valentin Ganev

Factomatic
Are you able to take part in a relaunch of the protocol under a new name? Are you willing to work as a team instead of against each other to promote the protocol and gain the resources needed? Or do you prefer to do nothing and hope for a miracle?
It does belong here. If an ANO prefers to keep a gravy train going that is clearly not working, that should be widely understood by standing parties.

I'm interested in giving standing to the people who want to further the protocol, not just their bank accounts.
We do not agree that they belong here and indeed a good portion of the reasons are what Niels has outlined above. As a Guide, a part of his responsibilities is to oversee governance and in our view the Standing system is not the place to ask those questions of ANOs, as we stated in our original answer.

We would like to elaborate why we don't feel this is the right medium to ask such questions:
  • they are leading and have very little to do with the objective evaluation of the performance of ANOs based on their efficiency, which is the goal of the Standing system
  • they imply that ANOs are working against each other
  • they imply that ANOs not supporting a rebrand are doing nothing and are hoping for a miracle, while furthering their bank accounts
  • given that you're asking these questions here, it seems that Federate This is considering the answer to these questions as one of the criteria based on which to determine Standing. We view this as a very dangerous thing to do, as many ANOs can have valid reasons for not supporting a rebrand and a difference of opinion on this matter with Federate This cannot be used as a reason to remove Standing from an ANO in our view
All of that aside, we would like to once again stress that we're obviously happy to work as a team with other ANOs, which includes following any consensus reached by the Standing Parties, including on a rebrand (which we do not support at this point).
 
Top