Question for Stamp-IT from Niels Klomp

Chappie

Factomize Bot
@Stamp-IT,

@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?
 
What type of parties would you see the protocol attract as users?

We believe the end users are going to be a mix of institutional users (governments, cities), IoT projects and supply chain management. Most of these users will end up with solutions that are making the blockchain transparent and not the main focus.

Do you believe current governance to accommodate that?

Yes. We do not see anything in current governance that conflicts with adding new users of the protocol.

That being said, current governance is not perfect. To us, it feels too heavy at times. ANOs have too much freedom to operate in regards to their efficiency and contribution for this efficiency. This tends to create tensions due to the fact that these entities are opaque and standing parties are required to evaluate them with limited information. We’d strongly advocate changing the dynamic sooner rather than later to lower the amount of stress on the system and infighting which divert too much of the limited energy available in the ecosystem towards non productive work.

What is your take on current standing parties and types? Anything needing to change?

We have been a strong proponent of including as quickly as possible more standing parties to the ecosystem. Adding token holders makes a lot of sense, and giving weight to the ECs burners is at least as much important because, on the long term, their interests are perfectly aligned with the viability of the ecosystem.

Can you mention anything about decisiveness and decision making as well as direction?

We could argue that the ecosystem is missing direction at times. However, other than ensuring technical stability of the protocol, which we believe has consistently been a top priority of the ecosystem, a decentralized blockchain should not have to have a single, universally recognized direction. The ecosystem is not a business. It will evolve organically according to the concerns and priorities of the different parties that compose it.

Do you believe you are qualified to vote on every single thing?

Our team has a lot of technical, business and economic expertise. We also spend a lot of time reading discussion on Factomize and Discord. Taking into account our combined background knowledge and the input from the community, we believe that our votes have been well thought out.

Still, this process takes a lot of time, and we understand not all parties have the capacity or willingness to make the required efforts. We envision a time where there will be less issues put up for vote.

Do you believe large institutions and governments could use the protocol with current governance as is?

Yes. As said before, we do not see anything in current governance that conflicts with adding new users of the protocol, small or large.

Some institutions might find that the ecosystem is not decentralized enough, but we believe they are a tiny minority. Adding new types of standing parties could help address their concerns.

Do you believe parties can make long term commitments towards the protocol at this time?

The types of parties most relevant to this question are ANOs and users of the protocol.

Current ANOs certainly can make a long term commitment towards the protocol. At the very least, Stamp-It is committed to its ANO role. However, for candidate ANOs, the very decision to apply is a difficult one at this time.

Users of the protocol: We believe most potential users of the protocol willing to put data on a public blockchain can make a long term commitment to Factom at this time. However, for some of them, the current level of decentralization could be an issue.

Do you believe you are doing everything in your power to address any concerns about the above?

To sum up our top concerns with governance...

Reduce infighting: We voted against the ANO election and demotion system, but our opinion was not that of the majority. At this point, we believe the best way forward to address this issue is to put every ANOs at the same level of efficiency. They would all become Infra ANO. We voted to go down to 1 server, which would have been a step in this direction. Again, our opinion was not that of the majority. We do not believe we can do much more on this subject at this point, other than continue advocating our position when the subject arises again.

Increase decentralization: We would like to make room for token holders and EC burners in governance. This must be automated in some way, and the process must take into account the way it will be implemented, e.g. on the Factomize forum or directly on the blockchain. In both cases, we are not well positioned to lead the initiative. However, we will continue to advocate extending standing parties and we would support a grant that offers this.
 
Top