TRGG3R LLC

Secured
#1
Legal Entity Name: TRGG3R, LLC

Natural Person: Nolan Bauer

I am happy to announce my candidacy for one of the open Guide positions for the Factom® Protocol.

I have been a member of this community since 2017 and have enjoyed watching the transition that has taken place from then to now. I am a member of the Veteran Blockchain Investment Firm Authority Node Operator, yet running under my personal LLC, based in West Virginia. I previously ran unsuccessfully for a Guide position in the previous election round. This did not discourage me and I found other opportunities to collaborate and contribute to furthering the interests of the Factom® Protocol. I look forward to the opportunity to serve as a Guide.

I have been a sponsor for the Factom Inc development grants since Dec 2018. In the short time onboard, along with the other sponsors, we have been able to make progress in the oversight of this grant. We now have detailed blog posts from Factom Inc as well video recordings of the grant review available to the public.

I have also worked with other ANOs to advise and assist in pursuing government funding opportunities. I previously posted on Factomize highlighting the opportunities available and the process through which entities can apply for funding.

My background is in government and specifically the Department of Defense. For more information on my background, my LinkedIn can be found here.

Priorities:
  • Evaluate & update the grant process
Incorporating my experience in government acquisitions, I would like to see a more streamlined approach to the grant process. Community grants are essentially contracts between the Factom® Protocol and the grantees. I envision a system where the deliverables are better defined through which milestone completions can be better codified. There are various types of community grants in existence, some more R&D focused, others more fixed-price. Differing types of grants deserve evaluation under different lenses. In my time as a Guide, I will work to move the grant process forward to where it is ready for automating the grant payouts and compatible with milestone evaluation.
  • Standing party expansion
Further decentralizing the decision process of the Factom® Protocol is paramount. I will work with the community and other members of the existing Standing Parties to draft a framework with the end goal of expanding the Standing Parties beyond the status quo. FCT holders deserve to have a say in the governance of the protocol and it is imperative their incorporation into the governance process is achieved. Furthermore, as the Factom® Protocol experiences continued gains in adoption and utility, we must ensure those entities who are bringing usage to the protocol have a say in the governance. Entry Credit usage must be weighted into the governance decision process. This further incentivizes organizations to utilize the Factom® Protocol and ensures a breadth of stakeholder interest in the governance process.

Thank you all for the consideration to serve as a Guide for the Factom® Protocol. The next twelve months will be exciting and I look forward to being active in shaping the discussions and direction of the protocol.

Nolan Bauer
 
Secured
#3
Thank you for volunteering for this challenging and valuable role.

At this stage I have one question for all of the prospective guides:

If you were able to change only one thing during your tenure what would that be, why would you choose it and what would you specifically bring that would make a difference to the outcome?

(I recognise that certain guides have already made some of these things explicit in their statement and do not expect them to have to repeat that, in which case a partial answer or simple reference to their statement will suffice.)
 
Secured
#4
First, thank you for stepping up as a Candidate. Putting yourself out there like this is not easy and I appreciate your willingness and desire to work for the Protocol.

1. Thank you for sharing your LinkedIn profile.

2. Certain processes such as Document Ratification require a 4/5 vote from Guides prior to the process moving on to additional Standing Parties for a vote. Do you feel this is a centralization of power in the ecosystem? Why or why not? And under what circumstances would you vote "no" and gatekeep that process from progressing?

3. Do you feel Guides should always be a Standing Party? If so, why? If not, when would you like to see the role removed?

4. It's important that our Guides be diverse in their thinking and approach to problems. Which current Guide are you most opposite to in your thinking, how so, and why is that a good thing?

Thank you.
 
Secured
#5
Thank you for applying for the Guide position Nolan.

You are part of the VBIF ANO and I reckon that you currently have a small team (1 or 2 collaborators total?). If you were elected how would that impact your ANO? I have concerns that your work as Guide would deplete your time and energy invested into your ANO which wouldn't be performing well enough in regards to ANO expectations (as Guide work doesn't count towards your ANO). Can you alleviate my concerns? :)

Thank you.
 
Secured
#6
Thank you for volunteering for this challenging and valuable role.

At this stage I have one question for all of the prospective guides:

If you were able to change only one thing during your tenure what would that be, why would you choose it and what would you specifically bring that would make a difference to the outcome?

(I recognise that certain guides have already made some of these things explicit in their statement and do not expect them to have to repeat that, in which case a partial answer or simple reference to their statement will suffice.)
Hello Mike and thank you for the question. As I highlighted in my candidacy announcement, I intend to prioritize my efforts into optimizing the grant selection and execution process to the point where on-chain execution options can be identified and prepared for selection by the Standing Parties (given the technical bandwidth to bring to fruition). All standing parties and grantees have the responsibility to be good stewards of the grant pool. On-chain grant selection and execution may not be an option within the next year, but I would like to identify the process to get there and have the foundation laid out to get there.

-Nolan
 
Secured
#7
How many hours do you plan to dedicate each week?
Hello @Azn1nvas1on,

In addition to continued community engagement, I plan to dedicate a minimum of 2 hours per day strictly to execution of the guide duties but anticipate more time required early on to get up to speed. The current guides have done a phenomenal job of programming out the timeline for the year and I can plan my schedule to surge for these events (votes, governance reviews, etc). As you are likely aware, I am also an ANO and have responsibilities to the business to ensure the protocol is decentralized and we are fulfilling our pledges. I have control over my schedule and feel confident I can dedicate the time required to ensure the protocol is prioritized where necessary. You’ve likely seen my participation on Discord & Factomize at various times throughout the day and weekends. I intend to continue this participation and will use this time to catch up on guide or ANO duties where necessary, depending on the priority for the week.

Please let me know if you require further clarification.

-Nolan
 
Secured
#8
First, thank you for stepping up as a Candidate. Putting yourself out there like this is not easy and I appreciate your willingness and desire to work for the Protocol.

1. Thank you for sharing your LinkedIn profile.

2. Certain processes such as Document Ratification require a 4/5 vote from Guides prior to the process moving on to additional Standing Parties for a vote. Do you feel this is a centralization of power in the ecosystem? Why or why not? And under what circumstances would you vote "no" and gatekeep that process from progressing?

3. Do you feel Guides should always be a Standing Party? If so, why? If not, when would you like to see the role removed?

4. It's important that our Guides be diverse in their thinking and approach to problems. Which current Guide are you most opposite to in your thinking, how so, and why is that a good thing?

Thank you.
Thank you for the questions, @David Chapman,

2 & 3. I feel the Guides are a centralization of power and look forward to the Guides eventually being phased out with a more expansive Standing Party system. The architects of M3 have done a fantastic job to ensure the risk is reduced given the circumstances, but our goal should be to continue the protocol forward to the eventual disbanding of the Guide role & onboarding of additional Standing Party groups. I do not intend on gatekeeping any votes and would expect there to be no ambiguity in my voting record. If I feel there is a situation that may be detrimental to the protocol, I will vote as such, even if it is not in line with the other Guides. That said, my reasoning will be clear and if overruled, then that is the will of the protocol. My second priority in my candidacy announcement was to work on expanding the standing parties. I hope within the next two to three years the majority of Guide responsibilities will have been reduced to the point where the Guide role is no longer necessary. There are various technical and governance hurdles to get there and I look forward to guiding that process along. The expanding of Standing Parties to include FCT staking and EC users will be essential to achieve this end state. In the near term, the onboarding of additional ANO entities will further decentralize the governance process.

4. As for existing Guides, I have not seen many issues where I would disagree in thought process, however I would likely differ most with Tor in the sense of bureaucratic processes. I appreciate the level of detail he brings to the governance process, however sometimes feel that organizations can suffer from paralysis due to bureaucracies and the establishment of vertical levels / checkpoints to the organizational structure. My experience has been in largely flat organizations that can operate in dynamic environments where the members can find synergies to execute the mission timely and effectively. I look forward to the opportunity to better acquaint myself with Tor should we both become Guides this round. I have a lot to learn as a Guide and hope to add some of his wisdom to my basket of knowledge.

-Nolan

~Edit FCT staking, not EC staking.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#9
Thank you for applying for the Guide position Nolan.

You are part of the VBIF ANO and I reckon that you currently have a small team (1 or 2 collaborators total?). If you were elected how would that impact your ANO? I have concerns that your work as Guide would deplete your time and energy invested into your ANO which wouldn't be performing well enough in regards to ANO expectations (as Guide work doesn't count towards your ANO). Can you alleviate my concerns? :)

Thank you.
Hello @Paul Bernier,

Thank you for the question and concern. VBIF has many exciting endeavors we are currently working. My role is largely on the technical side, so besides managing the infrastructure, being available for meetings, working the government grants proposals, and collaborating on the vision, I have time to dedicate to the Guide role. I regularly lurk on Discord and Factomize and look forward to channeling some of that time and energy into the Guide responsibilities. I can assure you that our ANO responsibilities will not be impacted. If you or anyone feels they are being impacted, I would expect the community to express those concerns with us at the earliest possible opportunity.

-Nolan
 
Secured
#10
Hello Mike and thank you for the question. As I highlighted in my candidacy announcement, I intend to prioritize my efforts into optimizing the grant selection and execution process to the point where on-chain execution options can be identified and prepared for selection by the Standing Parties (given the technical bandwidth to bring to fruition). All standing parties and grantees have the responsibility to be good stewards of the grant pool. On-chain grant selection and execution may not be an option within the next year, but I would like to identify the process to get there and have the foundation laid out to get there.

-Nolan
Hi Nolan, Thank you for your response. I can see what your priority is. I can also discern why. I can see that you bring persistence and determination (having unfortunately been unsuccessful in your last application) and your experience in government all of which are great. Please tell me a little more about what you will bring and how you will bring it which will make a difference in moving toward an improved grant selection and execution process?
 
Secured
#11
Firstly, thank you for putting yourself up for election for this important and challenging position! These are general questions that I am asking to all applicants. If you feel the questions are redundant to your previous replies. Feel free to cite that and move forward.

Having recently ratified changes to Doc 001 I would appreciate it if you could take a moment to explain how you will intend to carry out the following as a guide.

1. Under Guide eligibility standards.
(a) demonstrate independence in thought, leadership, and business
(b) be of good moral character with a demonstrated interest in the long term best interests of the protocol, willingness to serve the community of users, and history as a leader in the community.

2. Under Guide responsibilities
(a) make themselves available to the community
(b) Maintain orderly operation of the protocol network and facilitate the relationships between standing parties and the community. Further, by ensuring an adequate number of applicants to run a large enough pool of servers to ensure 65 servers are always available for the Authority Set.
(c) Be responsible for overseeing the application of the protocol governance to the operation of the the protocol.

Finally I see the responsibility of “Maintain orderly operation of the protocol” to extend beyond simply the technical and governance parts of the protocol and extending towards the wider community. Do you agree with this interpretation? If so how do you intend to achieve this?

Thanks Again
 
Secured
#12
For legal reasons, we elect entities, not individuals. As such, the entity is the Guide and not a single individual. Therefore, in theory at least, any individual under the entity's umbrella can act in a Guide manner. This creates a scenario where an entity could get elected and then bring in an unknown individual as a part of said entity to execute the Guide responsibilities.

So the question is: If elected, will any other individuals besides yourself be acting in a Guide capacity for your entity?

Thank You
 
Secured
#13
For legal reasons, we elect entities, not individuals. As such, the entity is the Guide and not a single individual. Therefore, in theory at least, any individual under the entity's umbrella can act in a Guide manner. This creates a scenario where an entity could get elected and then bring in an unknown individual as a part of said entity to execute the Guide responsibilities.

So the question is: If elected, will any other individuals besides yourself be acting in a Guide capacity for your entity?

Thank You
Hi @Matt Osborne,

I will be the only representative of TRGG3R, LLC performing the Guide duties. I am a one man organization.

-Nolan
 
Secured
#14
Firstly, thank you for putting yourself up for election for this important and challenging position! These are general questions that I am asking to all applicants. If you feel the questions are redundant to your previous replies. Feel free to cite that and move forward.

Having recently ratified changes to Doc 001 I would appreciate it if you could take a moment to explain how you will intend to carry out the following as a guide.

1. Under Guide eligibility standards.
(a) demonstrate independence in thought, leadership, and business
(b) be of good moral character with a demonstrated interest in the long term best interests of the protocol, willingness to serve the community of users, and history as a leader in the community.

2. Under Guide responsibilities
(a) make themselves available to the community
(b) Maintain orderly operation of the protocol network and facilitate the relationships between standing parties and the community. Further, by ensuring an adequate number of applicants to run a large enough pool of servers to ensure 65 servers are always available for the Authority Set.
(c) Be responsible for overseeing the application of the protocol governance to the operation of the the protocol.

Finally I see the responsibility of “Maintain orderly operation of the protocol” to extend beyond simply the technical and governance parts of the protocol and extending towards the wider community. Do you agree with this interpretation? If so how do you intend to achieve this?

Thanks Again
Thank you @DanG for the questions.

1a. I don’t rush to judgement. I am pretty methodical in my reasoning, and where I lack enough information, I seek sources.

1b. I’ve been a participating member of this community since late 2017. I help where I can and share in the common interest of the members to improve the protocol. Cheesy, I know, but I was a Boy Scout. I was always taught to leave the campsite better than when you entered it. I try to expand that into my everyday occurrences and this community is no different. If there is somewhere I think my experience and knowledge can improve the protocol and community at large, I offer that up where able. That’s why I feel I can contribute as a Guide.

2a. I’m pretty active on Discord and Factomize (even if I’m not posting). I’d like to offer up specific hours in the day to be available (or for answering questions) once up to speed as a Guide.

2b. The next cadre of Guides will have to oversee expanding the ANO pool, expanding Standing Parties, and continuing charting the governance of the protocol. This is significant responsibility and not to be taken lightly. I am prepared for this undertaking.

2c. I am prepared to work with the community to ensure the governance discussions and votes are accomplished objectively and timely. The foundation our Standing Parties lay out now will have a lasting effect on the success of the protocol.

I find it interesting that Doc 001 also states that Guides are charged with “...facilitating orderly operation of the protocol”. This is important to note that the Guides, although holding weight as part of the Standing Parties, are largely facilitators of the protocol. This means that we are charged to make easier; assist the progress of the protocol. I feel Guides are not the sole maintainers of the protocol. Doing so would be to continue or keep up in an existing state. I see the role of the Guides to be actors who work to advance the protocol to the eventual existence where guides are no longer necessary. Eventually the Standing Parties will have ultimate control in the direction and priorities of the protocol, like shareholders of a corporation. I intend to accomplish this by facilitating discussions, meeting deadlines with regards to the schedule, and pushing the community to continue developing governance to meet the priorities I intend to accomplish and those of the other Guides.

-Nolan
 
Secured
#15
Hi Nolan, Thank you for your response. I can see what your priority is. I can also discern why. I can see that you bring persistence and determination (having unfortunately been unsuccessful in your last application) and your experience in government all of which are great. Please tell me a little more about what you will bring and how you will bring it which will make a difference in moving toward an improved grant selection and execution process?
Thanks for the follow up question @Mike Buckingham.

I intend to bring my DoD Program Management experience with regards to the execution of government contracts experience into the fold. I previously managed a portfolio overseeing the modernization of various airborne and ground systems within the Air National Guard. Although we do not have Contract Officers and Program Managers to interact with each other in the course of grant execution, we have the protocol itself and with that the ability to incorporate on-chain voting, milestone declaration and judgement, as well as coinbase payout. I won’t go into too much details on contracting information and law, but I feel there is potential to shape the grants to meet the interest of the grantee as well as the best interests of the protocol. Not every grant should be viewed through a firm fixed price lens, and grantees should absolutely be rewarded for taking on the risk to their standing and their bottom line to develop processes and tools that bring value to the protocol. They should also be rewarded for accomplishing tasks ahead of schedule. I envision a system where different types of grants can be applied for, and depending on the focus, can be administered in various ways. The grantee can request a front-load of FCT to initiate the work, while milestone completions result in subsequent payments. In some cases, the grant may be a reward grant for work previously accomplished. In this case the form would be fairly simple and a vote to approve would result in the disbursement of funds. Part of the approval process will involve the Standing Parties approving the code (or sections of code) that will result in the coinbase payout. I picture a process where a member of the community will not have to physically enter the data into the code & validate the information, relying on others to audit the code for the next release. It can be automated and provided as part of a pull request direct to Factomd. I would need to have discussions with some of the more technical folks to determine the feasibility of smart contracts using say, FAT, and the possibility of incorporating our grant process into it. As visionary as I may be with regards to the grant process, ultimately it will be up to the community to decide whether to move forward or not. I plan to devote time (outside of the facilitation of governance) to prepare some options for the Standing Parties to decide upon. I think if we are able to automate the administration of grants it would be a fantastic use case to use to highlight the utility of the Factom® Protocol.

Please continue asking if you require more clarity.

-Nolan
 
Secured
#16
Thanks for the follow up question @Mike Buckingham.

I intend to bring my DoD Program Management experience with regards to the execution of government contracts experience into the fold. I previously managed a portfolio overseeing the modernization of various airborne and ground systems within the Air National Guard. Although we do not have Contract Officers and Program Managers to interact with each other in the course of grant execution, we have the protocol itself and with that the ability to incorporate on-chain voting, milestone declaration and judgement, as well as coinbase payout. I won’t go into too much details on contracting information and law, but I feel there is potential to shape the grants to meet the interest of the grantee as well as the best interests of the protocol. Not every grant should be viewed through a firm fixed price lens, and grantees should absolutely be rewarded for taking on the risk to their standing and their bottom line to develop processes and tools that bring value to the protocol. They should also be rewarded for accomplishing tasks ahead of schedule. I envision a system where different types of grants can be applied for, and depending on the focus, can be administered in various ways. The grantee can request a front-load of FCT to initiate the work, while milestone completions result in subsequent payments. In some cases, the grant may be a reward grant for work previously accomplished. In this case the form would be fairly simple and a vote to approve would result in the disbursement of funds. Part of the approval process will involve the Standing Parties approving the code (or sections of code) that will result in the coinbase payout. I picture a process where a member of the community will not have to physically enter the data into the code & validate the information, relying on others to audit the code for the next release. It can be automated and provided as part of a pull request direct to Factomd. I would need to have discussions with some of the more technical folks to determine the feasibility of smart contracts using say, FAT, and the possibility of incorporating our grant process into it. As visionary as I may be with regards to the grant process, ultimately it will be up to the community to decide whether to move forward or not. I plan to devote time (outside of the facilitation of governance) to prepare some options for the Standing Parties to decide upon. I think if we are able to automate the administration of grants it would be a fantastic use case to use to highlight the utility of the Factom® Protocol.

Please continue asking if you require more clarity.

-Nolan
Hi Nolan, Thank you for a well considered and comprehensive response. I can certainly see more clearly now how you would make a difference with this thinking and your background experience. Like you I think that rigorous improvement to the overall grant process ought to enable better and faster development to the benefit of the community and the Grantee.
 
Secured
#17
As a former Guide, I can speak from experience that being a Guide is time consuming and can be stressful. It can take critical time away from one's duties to their ANO yet the health of your ANO is paramount to the network. Is your ANO in good health where you can work less on it and does your business partner(s) or employer support your running for Guide?