Vote for the five marketing videos Factomize should produce - Everyone can vote

Unrestricted Public Thread

  • Viewed BI Foundation BI Foundation Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining BuildingIM BuildingIM Canonical Ledgers Canonical Ledgers Crypto Logic Crypto Logic Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow David Chapman De Facto De Facto Factom Inc. Factom Inc. Factomatic Factomatic Factomize Factomize Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable Guides HashnStore HashnStore LUCIAP LUCIAP LayerTech LayerTech Matter of Fact Matter of Fact Multicoin Capital Multicoin Capital Prestige IT Prestige IT RewardChain RewardChain Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed None

Which five videos should Factomize produce? PLEASE SELECT 5.


  • Total voters
    45
  • Poll closed .
Secured
#1
Factomize was awarded a grant for five marketing videos. We selected six topics and wrote scripts which the community helped improve in this thread. In addition, the community chose other topics and wrote scripts, two of which were sufficiently fleshed out to make the cut for voting.

Please vote on five videos. The five with the highest score will go into production. We reserve the right to further edit these scripts or even choose different videos if production necessitates as much. This vote is a suggestion which we will do our best to follow, but we want to be able to make spur of the moment decisions we feel are best for the protocol if the need arises. In addition, if there happens to be a tie for fifth place, we will choose which of the two to produce. This poll will be open for three days and ANYONE with a forum account can vote.

The seven video topics and scripts:

1. FAT Protocol

The Factom Asset Token Protocol, or FAT for short, is an open source tokenization protocol build on top of the factom blockchain. Thanks to the design of the Factom protocol, FAT enables fixed, one-tenth of a cent transactions and costs a little over a penny per new token issuance. This means that FAT has substantially lower transaction and issuance costs than Ethereum Tokens with similar features and speed. Not only are currencies and security tokens available, but extremely efficient non-fungible tokens as well. Yes, tokenized digital assets have come to the Factom Protocol. To learn more about the FAT protocol, visit factom protocol dot org forward slash, technologies.

2. First Factom Protocol ITO - Triall

The Factom Asset Token Protocol, or FAT for short, is an open source tokenization protocol build on top of the factom blockchain. It allows for both fungible and non fungible tokens to be created in a more flexible, cost effective manner than Ethereum and has fixed transaction costs. The first planned Initial Token Offering will be conducted by Triall which optimizes the medical innovation process by delivering an online environment that connects all who are involved in carrying out clinical trials. The Factom Protocol is excited to join the top ranks of tokenization platforms. To learn more about FAT and Triall, visit factom protocol dot org and triall with two “els” dot i-o.

3. Factom Protocol Two Token System

The Factom protocol is a two token, mint and burn system. The Factoid (F-C-T) is the market traded token and Entry Credits (E-C) are the fixed cost, non transferable tokens that allow you to enter data into the protocol. E-Cs cost one tenth of a cent each and can only be generated by burning Factoids. If Factoids are one dollar and you burn one, you get one thousand E-Cs. If Factoids are ten dollars and you burn one, you receive ten thousand E-Cs. Fixed costs enable effective budgeting in fiat, as well as subscription models where customers don’t need to hold, or handle cryptocurrency as the system does it in the background. To learn more about the Factom Protocol, join us at factomprotocol.org.

4. What are Authority Node Operators

Factom Protocol Authority Node Operators, or A-N-Os for short, are an elected, international coalition of companies that provide the infrastructure that decentralizes and secures the protocol. There are currently 25 A-N-Os and there will eventually be at least 65. A-N-Os are incentivized to further the protocol as they split the 73,000 new Factoids the protocol generates per month. To see the existing A-N-Os and learn how your company can become one, visit factomprotocol.org.

5. Grant Pool

The Factom Protocol generates 73,000 Factoids per month to pay the companies that provide the infrastructure that decentralizes and secures the protocol. At present, more than 40% of those Factoids go directly to the on-chain grant pool. Every three months a new grant round is opened. Anyone can submit an application for a grant which are then voted upon by the Standing Parties. Past grants have been awarded for development, infrastructure, marketing and other essential projects. To learn more about the grant pool and Factom protocol, join us at factom protocol dot org.

6. Governance

To be decentralized, not only does infrastructure and development need to be distributed, but governance as well. The Factom protocol’s governance is decentralized among Standing Parties which have voting rights. Currently the Standing Parties are the five elected Guides and Authority Node Operators which are an international coalition of companies that were elected to provide the infrastructure for the protocol, take part in governance, and further the Factom ecosystem. Future Standing Parties with voting rights will include token holders, users of the protocol, and more. To learn more about Factom Protocol and its governance, join us at factom protocol dot org.

Community Suggested / Scripted Videos

7. High-level overview of Factom history

The Factom protocol was envisioned and created by the company Factom incorporated in 2015. An ICO was held, and the initial 8.x million Factoids distributed. Since then Factom Incorporated has worked on the blockchain software, creating internal testnets and launching the Factom mainnet on September 1, 2015. Over time more people contributed tools and third party infrastructure, resulting in the launch of a community testnet and companies and teams began developing for the protocol. In 2018 governance and critical infrastructure was decentralized between 25 companies, and is currently growing towards a stated goal of at least 65 core infrastructure operators.

8. Factomd.net Open Node & API Clients

Factom Open Node is a public, decentralized, load balanced factomd-node which provides an API to interact with the Factom blockchain protocol. It is an alternative to hosting and maintaining your own factomd-node. Did you know that Factom has API clients for most major programming languages including Javascript, Python, C#, Java, and Go? It’s easy to start deploying applications that utilize the Factom protocol. Learn more about the Open Node by visiting factom d dot net.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#7
So to make this clear @Perly

You feel that the vote should have been counted as 5 for MoF instead of one? If so that should have been made really clear and no interpretation should be left open. I don't understand why the remark needs to be made afterwards. Several entities have voted. BIF only voted with one person which is also a guide as well (so normally 4 + 1 votes if we did it individually). This was clearly an individual vote, so everybody should vote by themselves and not expect people to say in hindsight that there vote should have counted as 4/5 or whatever. If we would go down that route for a simple community vote we would never reach consensus because you cannot trust the actual number of votes and need to do calculation on it.

I interpreted @DanG's post as "Within MoF we made the decision to do unanimous votes to the outside world" (which I applaud). So me personally will count it as one in this case. If you want to count it as 5, you could still hold up that principle by doing the internal consensus first and then vote all 5 the same way. I find it strange if you expect people to do calculation based on a vote

So I am really confused about the remark. I hope you can bring me some perspective here ;)
 
Secured
#8
You mean interpret as you may?

If you feel that way MoF should have made a clear stance instead of saying interpret as you may and then coming back to it
So to make this clear @Perly

You feel that the vote should have been counted as 4 for MoF instead of one? If so that should have been made really clear and no interpretation should be left open. I don't understand why the remark needs to be made afterwards. Several entities have voted. BIF only voted with one person which is also a guide as well (so normally 4 + 1 votes if we did it individually). This was clearly an individual vote, so everybody should vote by themselves and not expect people to say in hindsight that there vote should have counted as 4/5 or whatever. If we would go down that route for a simple community vote we would never reach consensus because you cannot trust the actual number of votes and need to do calculation on it.

So I am really confused about the remark. I hope you can bring me some perspective here ;)
It was not meant to question the results. I was just wondering if it was taken in to account. There was a confusion about this with in MOF. So please don't interpret like I question the results. It was merely a question. And Yes I agree, we should not expect the calculations to be made, and we should have made the separate votes individually. It is our mistake.
 
Secured
#16
Ya for the record DBGrow also voted as a single vote (which is 6 people + guide). I have no complaints, I knew we could do either way, but I could see us setting some sort of standard on how we do such votes so there aren't any miscommunications.
Julian excellent point. A solution is that standing parties could receive one vote? Like MOF, Cube3 have internal discussions and then as a unified entity Mike generally posts in this forum on behalf of Cube3. The rest of Cube3 are in support of the vote he casts.

David thankyou for giving us the opportunity to vote on the video content.

As a thought experiment not a complaint, if a standing party has more members should that carry more weight? If Factom Inc decided all of their members of the discord were to vote here or Cube3 recruited 40 more members either could swing opinion polls. Should we be restricting this for a simple straw poll or not?

In general within the Factom community it is very confusing for outside entities to understand when an individual posts their opinion on a situation and they do not make it clear if that is the opinion of the entity or of the individual. Niels you regularly and clearly state wether what you are stating and from what perspective, others are not so careful. Julian I have a theory that this could be a deeper cause for misscomunications. Should there be Factom standards in general for communication on Factomize and Discord?
 
Last edited:
Secured
#17
Something to note, this poll isn't a formal governance vote. The grant did not require David solicit input from the community on the specific videos to make nor that if he did, it was only to be from the Standing Parties. This seems to be an informal poll to gauge what the wider community wants to see for the marketing videos. I think it's nice that he set it up for individuals as that allowed non-ANOs to have a voice in something tangible related to the protocol.