Question for Kompendium from Niels Klomp

Chappie

Factomize Bot
@Kompendium,

@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?
 

Jason Gregoire

Kompendium
1)What type of parties would you see the protocol attract as users?
We believe Factom protocol is well suited for:
-Small-to-medium financial, transactional, or clerical records firms
-Government
-University and scientific research community
-Data-rich service provides such as AR/VR/Gaming Industry
-And as a low cost, general public ledger, enterprise opportunities are limited only by creativity

Do you believe current governance to accommodate that?
No and Not Applicable (NA). No in the sense our current governance doesn’t add any advantage or ability to positively improve the chances for commercial adoption.. NA in the sense I’m not convinced our governance model is a major criterion in making business decisions.

What is your take on current standing parties and types? Anything needing to change?
I believe we need to expand those who are eligible to have standing, and at the same time adopt constraints to how influence is allotted amongst those with standing. IMO, current standing parties are too powerful to enact change and there is no leadership. Guides are the logical choice to hold influence and leadership for the direction of the protocol and governance matters, but this is currently not within their defined charter, and the community seems to be wavering on guide utility.

Can you mention anything about decisiveness and decision making as well as direction?
The protocol doesn’t have a universally shared direction. I believe several of the ANOs have a vison of the direction they believe the Factom protocol should proceed, but it is not discussed, ratified or supported. This leads to infighting, a misalignment or grants, and ANOs working inefficiently and ineffectively in different directions. We lack a strategic direction and strategic road map. If we don’t know where we’re going, how should we know how and in what to invest community resources and ANO efforts? We also lack decisiveness in making hard decisions. I believe there are many reasons for this, not all of them avoidable and not all of them undesirable. We don’t all agree what direction we should go, so we are divided. We struggle to making well-informed decisions, but decisions are made regardless. I am very uncomfortable that anyone with standing can create a major-timed discussion with the decision expected to become binding. There needs to be a phased approach where such initiatives are screened and vetted to insure, they are well thought-out and are ready for community consideration. These discussions should also be scheduled and made public so those with standing that will participate in the discussion have time to research, ponder, and discuss the proposed discussion before they start.

Do you believe you are qualified to vote on every single thing?
No, I do not. However, I do feel that those who will benefit or suffer the consequence votes and decisions should have the opporuirnity to either vote or “testify” within such pre-voting discussions.

Do you believe large institutions and governments could use the protocol with current governance as is?
Yes and No. As stated, I’m not entirely convinced our governance (and occasional public and embarrassing spats) is a major adoption criterion; however, I don’t believe our current state of governance provides a net positive or improves our chances of institutional or government use, so it’s negative or neutral.

Do you believe parties can make long term commitments towards the protocol at this time?
I believe this would be a challenge. As stated, our current system allows radical change with too little vetting and community consideration. From day-to-day, someone could propose a change that could materially impact how someone might use the protocol or from benefit from it. Those with standing not informed of such impacts might be easily swayed to support approving the decision while uninformed. Given we don’t have a road map or formally agreed upon direction, the protocol could change or move in a direction that does not align with how a party today might want to use the protocol.

Do you believe you are doing everything in your power to address any concerns about the above?
Yes and no. We’re working to bring the future we envision to the protocol and industry, but we often we feel at odds with many in the community. IMO, there is too much concern with today, and a disregard for next month, next year, and a decade from now, but without a road map, its hard to know with the future might include with Factom (or whatever name the protocol might adopt). But no, I’m sure there are many other things we should and could be doing. Things take time, and its hard to say how to change the current state we we’re in – it feels like we’re going sideways, but hopefully it’s just the start of another great climb. I’m not very optimistic in many of the recent initiatives we’ve adopted, but I do remain very confident that the community and the Factom protocol have a very bright and promising future.
 
Top