Question for Matters from Niels Klomp

Chappie

Factomize Bot
@Matters,

@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?
 

Keith Pincombe

Matters
Marketing Committee
Website Committee
1) What type of parties would you see the protocol attract as users?
For Factom to thrive it needs a diverse set of users. We've already seen that very large organizations prefer to maintain their own private blockchains, which understandably makes sense from a privacy and economic perspective. The likelihood is that Factom will see greater utility from either small and midsized organizations that likely have much smaller individual usage but at far larger numbers. Then for me, the ultimate use-case would be some kind of end-user application/s, the PegNet is the prime example of this.

2) Do you believe current governance to accommodate that?
It depends on what you mean really. Do I think that current governance is limiting usage of the protocol? No, not at all.

Do I think that they should become involved in governance? Well, that is a more complicated answer. I don't really think large institutions and governments care about our governance very much or ever will. Let's take Linux and IBM for example, two very well established entities with plenty of history together. IBM is happy to conform to Linux licensing rules and contributes plenty of code but it doesn't play any role in Linux governance. IBM did once try to get involved but backed out because its organization couldn't respond to the community fast enough. The simple fact is corporate and community dynamics are inherently incompatible.

3) What is your take on current standing parties and types? Anything needing to change?
We need a way more opportunities for people within the community to be able to get involved. We should add staking and we should include stakers as a standing party. It makes sense from community inclusion, economic and marketing perspectives.

4) Can you mention anything about decisiveness and decision making as well as direction?
As a community, I don't think we do a very good job of making decisions. There are many reasons for this. It's partly a lack of leadership and lack of collaboration but its mainly because of a lack of goals and forward planning. I think it's impossible to make good decisions without some kind of end goal.

5) Do you believe you are qualified to vote on every single thing?
It really depends on what you mean when you ask this question.
If you mean are we doing a good job of providing the right information to make an informed decision when voting? Then I would say no.
If you mean someone should have a specific qualification to be able to vote? Then I disagree with your viewpoint. I don't think whether someone is qualified should be conflated into determining whether someone should vote. Going down that road would remove a fundamental aspect of our decentralized governance.

6) Do you believe large institutions and governments could use the protocol with current governance as is?
Large institutions and governments will be looking for the terms and conditions they have to conform with to use the protocol. As long as they meet their expectations and needs then I can't see why they wouldn't. We will only know in time but if the department of homeland security hasn't had any problems then it would suggest to me we're OK.

7) Do you believe parties can make long term commitments towards the protocol at this time?
It really depends what you mean when you say parties? Are you talking about ANOs or external parties? It's possible for both to make long term commitments. I think most ANOs would be hesitant to given that we're only talking about 22 months since the M3 launch and the uncertainty of how the current standing system is going to play out. External parties are a different matter though, I've seen a few companies making long term commitments to Factom because the risk is far less for them.

8) Do you believe you are doing everything in your power to address any concerns about the above?
We're doing what we can to address the concerns we have but twenty voices shouting all at once rarely ever helps. It's important to listen, learn and take the time to find the right solutions. If you run in the wrong direction, you end up taking longer to reach your goal.
 
Last edited:
Top