Question for Factomatic from David Chapman


Factomize Bot

@David Chapman asked the following question:

Thank you for sticking with Factom through thick and thin. We know it hasn’t been easy at times. Let us first say, we want all existing ANOs and the protocol to succeed. Our hope is that every ANO becomes critical to the ecosystem and we take Factom to the next level. We believe that in a fast moving industry like crypto where Factom is under-funded compared to other platforms, we must be very smart with our resources. That means every ANO must be critical to the ecosystem. As such, we are asking every ANO the following question:

Do you believe your ANO is critical to the Factom ecosystem where, if you left, it would materially impact Factom’s chance of success? If yes, what makes you critical? If not, how do you plan to change that and what is your timeline?

Valentin Ganev

We are involved in many aspects of the protocol, including governance, technical and legal.

That said, what some view as critical contributions may be viewed by others as not so important. For example, we have entities, which view marketing and development of commercial projects to be of utmost importance, while they don't view open-source work or governance as critical.

In our view, the only critical ANO is Factom Inc. and that is due to their technical expertise and knowledge of the protocol. We believe the protocol can move forward even without them as ANO, although it will be a challenge. There are several ANOs, who are also very important to the protocol, but we don't deem them as critical. Them leaving would also be undesirable, but not as "critical".

Essentially, being "critical" is in the eye of the beholder and as such the best we can do is list work that we have done for the protocol, which we deem very important. It's up to you or others to judge how critical it is and there's bound to be a difference of opinions:
  • Nikola contributed actively to the LRWG’s efforts to come up with the framework and create the non-profit bylaws (this statement has been edited)
  • Factomatic has been involved and is committed to be further involved in moving aspects of our governance on-chain
  • Factomatic is leading the work on the open-source implementation of DIDs and VCs
  • Factomatic is heavily involved in PegNet and has created the first GUI wallet for the network. We are also working on a beta release for it, which should be out soon™, and have participated in the design of the pShorts proposal, as well as in the review of and technical discussions on a number of other proposals
  • Factomatic has created the Kambani extension, which has seen good initial adoption from its release and which we're actively developing
We would also like to stress that although some of the above work is covered by grants, a lot of it has been subsidized internally and therefore we do not believe that it should be considered solely as grant work. To give two recent examples:
  • the Kambani extension has been in development for about an year now and 2 people have been working on it, as well as an outside digital agency. The backpay grant does not nearly cover the costs of research, design, development, testing, third-party expenses etc.
  • the Python DID library is also only partially covered by the backpay grant, as we detailed here.
Last edited: