Proposal: Efficiency Brackets

Unrestricted Public Thread

  • Viewed BI Foundation BI Foundation Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining Canonical Ledgers Canonical Ledgers Consensus Networks Consensus Networks Crypto Logic Crypto Logic Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow David Chapman De Facto De Facto Factable Solutions Factable Solutions Factomatic Factomatic Factomize Factomize Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable Guides HashQuark HashnStore HashnStore Kompendium Kompendium LUCIAP LUCIAP LayerTech LayerTech Matters Matters Prestige IT Prestige IT RewardChain RewardChain Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed Factom Inc. Factom Inc. Multicoin Capital Multicoin Capital
Again, I don't like this. For the sake of argument, again, lets take crypto logic. If they get 100% standing because they are a 70% efficiency ANO and particiating in governance. This takes away a slot of 10% from an ANO who may perform well at the 10% efficiency.

Crypto Logic's standing should have no impact on another ANOs efficiency. They are independent.
What do you think of brackets like this:

A. ANOs at 96-100% Standing operate at 20% efficiency or higher.
B. ANOs at 86-95% operate at 35% efficiency or higher.
C. ANOs at 76-86% operate at 50% efficiency or higher.
D. ANOs at 66-75% operate at 60% efficiency or higher.
E. ANOs at 40-65% operate at 70% efficiency or higher.
D. If an ANO drops below 40% Standing, they operate at 75% efficiency or higher until they get back above 40% OR are demoted.
 
What do you think of brackets like this:

A. ANOs at 96-100% Standing operate at 20% efficiency or higher.
B. ANOs at 86-95% operate at 35% efficiency or higher.
C. ANOs at 76-86% operate at 50% efficiency or higher.
D. ANOs at 66-75% operate at 60% efficiency or higher.
E. ANOs at 40-65% operate at 70% efficiency or higher.
D. If an ANO drops below 40% Standing, they operate at 75% efficiency or higher until they get back above 40% OR are demoted.
I personally don't like ANY tie between Standing and the efficiency you can operate at. Its conflating two things. Standing is the mechanism for feedback to your ANO about the quality of work you are producing AT THE CURRENT efficiency. That standing may have no relevance to a higher or lower efficiency. I think peoples primary concern with low efficiencies is that they have no 'say' over what that money goes to. At least in the Grant pool people vote and its clear there is consensus for some grants. A simple voting process will give people that say. And if 60% of the votes say yes, you've justified your lower efficiency for a specific DURATION, then people can't argue. An ANOs previous history and Standing naturally gets reflected in the vote casting, because people who have delivered for the system naturally get more 'trust' that they are working for the benefit of all.

Nobody can harp at a low efficiency after the vote, because there was consensus, and a time duration to revisit in case it doesn't work. We can set a maximum duration of 1 quarter, so the ANO must continually come back and justify their continued low efficiency. I think it will end fights about efficiency. Just vote it, and forget it. You can argue your points for or against before the vote, but when most people vote one way, its a clear signal that the system sees it as justifiable.
 
I personally don't like ANY tie between Standing and the efficiency you can operate at. Its conflating two things. Standing is the mechanism for feedback to your ANO about the quality of work you are producing AT THE CURRENT efficiency.
That's YOUR definition. Mine is different. How I score Standing is different and efficiency is only one variable.

That standing may have no relevance to a higher or lower efficiency. I think peoples primary concern with low efficiencies is that they have no 'say' over what that money goes to. At least in the Grant pool people vote and its clear there is consensus for some grants. A simple voting process will give people that say. And if 60% of the votes say yes, you've justified your lower efficiency for a specific DURATION, then people can't argue. An ANOs previous history and Standing naturally gets reflected in the vote casting, because people who have delivered for the system naturally get more 'trust' that they are working for the benefit of all.

Nobody can harp at a low efficiency after the vote, because there was consensus, and a time duration to revisit in case it doesn't work. We can set a maximum duration of 1 quarter, so the ANO must continually come back and justify their continued low efficiency. I think it will end fights about efficiency. Just vote it, and forget it. You can argue your points for or against before the vote, but when most people vote one way, its a clear signal that the system sees it as justifiable.
Let's walk through our two proposed systems:

Your System

1. ANO X wants to lower their efficiency from 40% to 20% as they think they're doing a good job and want to scale. Their Standing is 97% which means Standing Parties think they are a capable team.
2. They create a thread with poll and every Standing Party gets emailed. After much time and debate, the vote happens and 55% of Standing Parties vote no, 45% vote yes, and of course 7 don't vote because reasons.
3. ANO X is pissed off because 97% of Standing Parties thought they were doing a good job but apparently not. Ok, fine, they decide to try again. Five days later they put in a new thread and poll asking for their efficiency to be approved at 25%. After much more debate, the poll is finally held and hurray, 55% vote yes, 45% vote no, and 6 don't vote because reasons.
4. Someone, somewhere, somehow has to keep track of the fact this new efficiency is good for 3 months at which point it has to be revisited. The Guides? LOL. And some way some how it has to be determined if you're "successful" at that point. How do you do that? A new poll? And if you're not successful? What do you do? A new poll? How are you penalized? All of this gets very complicated, very fast, and if it's not automated, it's going to be a giant pain in the ass and be full of drama, conflict, and resentment. And there are going to be edge cases and it's going to get very, very subjective despite you guys wanting this to be objective.

Rinse and repeat every time an ANO wants to lower which should really scale well as we onboard new ANOs. /s

Bracket System

1. ANO X wants to lower their efficiency from 40% to 20% as they think they're doing a good job and want to scale. Their Standing is 97% which means Standing Parties think they are a capable team.
2. 20% is within their bracket so they lower to 20% and justify it within the existing system for exactly that, the Contributions forum.
3. Done.

Now, maybe after some duration ANO X really isn't performing at 20% like Standing Parties expect. A few Remove Standing and boom, they drop a bracket and are now at 35% efficiency or higher.

USE THE EXISTING, AUTOMATED SYSTEM.
 
Last edited:
I personally feel the fact that we have an automated removal process for ANOs but not defined expectations and efficiency guidelines extremely backwards. I'm honestly a bit shocked that more people in this community don't feel the same way.

I really think this discussion needs to happen in this order:
-Define ANO minimum contribution expectations and amend them to Doc-003
-Establish a baseline efficiency that goes with the previously defined expectations
-Establish a process for ANOs to request community approval/consent approval for efficiency drop below the guidelines.

Also standing should be based on performance of duties. Employees who show up to work on time don't get paid more than the identical positions who show up 10 mins late with excuses, they gain more respect. They may also become more likely candidates for elections, in our ecosystem this would be getting selected for Grants and paid positions such as guides, or community approval for efficiency reductions.
 
Its a brilliant idea @David Chapman . I would say that like in any case where you change the incentives you tend to have a quite radical change in behavior. The motive behind this is proposal obviously create a positive and more engaged ANO behavior. But it needs to be seen in real life to know if it works imo. Another question I have for this is, how does this affect the grant pool?
 
-Establish a process for ANOs to request community approval/consent approval for efficiency drop below the guidelines.
Isn't this missing David's point above?

1. ANO X wants to lower their efficiency from 40% to 20% as they think they're doing a good job and want to scale. Their Standing is 97% which means Standing Parties think they are a capable team.
2. They create a thread with poll and every Standing Party gets emailed. After much time and debate, the vote happens and 55% of Standing Parties vote no, 45% vote yes, and of course 7 don't vote because reasons.
3. ANO X is pissed off because 97% of Standing Parties thought they were doing a good job but apparently not. Ok, fine, they decide to try again. Five days later they put in a new thread and poll asking for their efficiency to be approved at 25%. After much more debate, the poll is finally held and hurray, 55% vote yes, 45% vote no, and 6 don't vote because reasons.
4. Someone, somewhere, somehow has to keep track of the fact this new efficiency is good for 3 months at which point it has to be revisited. The Guides? LOL. And some way some how it has to be determined if you're "successful" at that point. How do you do that? A new poll? And if you're not successful? What do you do? A new poll? How are you penalized? All of this gets very complicated, very fast, and if it's not automated, it's going to be a giant pain in the ass and be full of drama, conflict, and resentment. And there are going to be edge cases and it's going to get very, very subjective despite you guys wanting this to be objective.

Rinse and repeat every time an ANO wants to lower which should really scale well as we onboard new ANOs. /s
@Saul Schwartzbach Could you please explain how the process you want to establish will prevent the above scenario from happening? I am of course assuming that you don't think it's okay for someone to have to go through a potentially multi-week long process to drop their efficiency by 10%.

If you do think that's okay, then I propose renaming efficiency to "bureaucracy tolerance level" instead :p
 
I personally feel the fact that we have an automated removal process for ANOs but not defined expectations and efficiency guidelines extremely backwards. I'm honestly a bit shocked that more people in this community don't feel the same way.
1. I've created the rubrik Factomize will use to score most ANOs. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XlXUFoecYW1f1voY7zx1eo1Wx3IWbEKiUqwVmt-Mwm0/edit?usp=sharing -- this is our "expectations" of other ANOs. Over time I will refine it to cover the ways I see various ANOs perform (or not). To try and create a general expectations document that covers anything more than the basics that can get you removed for cause. To tie that to efficiency is a very bad idea in my opinion.

2. We're discussing efficiency guidelines right now. I tried to do it proactively with the one server solution but... yeah.
 
Its a brilliant idea @David Chapman . I would say that like in any case where you change the incentives you tend to have a quite radical change in behavior. The motive behind this is proposal obviously create a positive and more engaged ANO behavior. But it needs to be seen in real life to know if it works imo. Another question I have for this is, how does this affect the grant pool?
The numbers I've showcased are preliminary. But through refinement, I believe we can make sure the grant pool retains healthy inputs.
 
Isn't this missing David's point above?



@Saul Schwartzbach Could you please explain how the process you want to establish will prevent the above scenario from happening? I am of course assuming that you don't think it's okay for someone to have to go through a potentially multi-week long process to drop their efficiency by 10%.

If you do think that's okay, then I propose renaming efficiency to "bureaucracy tolerance level" instead :p
No I don't think we need a multi-week process for an efficiency drop, this part of the equation is complex which is why formal votes to drop standing were NOT included in our original proposal. We proposed that if an operator dropped efficiency outside the guidelines they justify doing so and the community can adjust standing or post public objections. My personal opinion is that we are tackling this problem backwards under this new proposal.

We are also at this time talking about delegating specific guide roles and responsibilities, why not make this one of them?
 
1. I've created the rubrik Factomize will use to score most ANOs. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XlXUFoecYW1f1voY7zx1eo1Wx3IWbEKiUqwVmt-Mwm0/edit?usp=sharing -- this is our "expectations" of other ANOs. Over time I will refine it to cover the ways I see various ANOs perform (or not). To try and create a general expectations document that covers anything more than the basics that can get you removed for cause. To tie that to efficiency is a very bad idea in my opinion.

2. We're discussing efficiency guidelines right now. I tried to do it proactively with the one server solution but... yeah.
I understand Factomize has done this, but where are the 27 other scoring cards? Will all the metrics be the same? How do you know that teams wont have conflicting metrics causing you to choose support of one team over another? It just doesn't make much sense to me to go this route, and I don't see it playing out very well long term. This standing system needs to mature greatly and be tested under real use before it's planned to be used for automating something as critical as operator incentive.

We aren't trying to tie the scoring card to efficiency, we are attempting to define minimum duties and an efficiency to go with it. An operators efficiency is tied to market movement under our proposal, not standing scoring. Standing only comes into play when an operator moves outside of the guidelines in a way deemed unjustifiable by the standing parties.
 
I understand Factomize has done this, but where are the 27 other scoring cards? Will all the metrics be the same? How do you know that teams wont have conflicting metrics causing you to choose support of one team over another? It just doesn't make much sense to me to go this route, and I don't see it playing out very well long term.
You're saying establishing a host of objective, and some subjective criteria won't work out well long term?

This standing system needs to mature greatly and be tested under real use before it's planned to be used for automating something as critical as operator incentive.
If we're going to allow teams to get removed under it, we can also use it for efficiency.

I see nothing that suggests to me that it's a flawed system at this point. So far, it's working quite well.
 
@David Chapman , wouldn't you rather know ahead of time that you have a defined runway to work with a lowered efficiency? Typically I'm assuming an ANO is lowering its efficiency to do some larger project. Doesn't it seem simpler just to say "hey, this is the scope of what I want to do, I'm going to give it 2 months to pan out, I'll update you then if I want to continue at a low efficiency". Rather than you lowering your efficiency to a new number (because you have enough standing initially) and slowly over time, people remove standing because they don't approve. To the point where midway through your project you don't have the funds to complete it? or achieve a set milestone?

Right now everyone can set their own efficiency to whatever and people complain that they don't have any say. Well, if you give them a say, people are now saying thats burdensome and I don't want people to have a say directly (only through the automated system).

Even with your proposed system, you still have to monitor everything. If you lower your efficiency and 3 days later someone checks the post and says, I don't like this and takes away standing. Now you have to raise your efficiency 3 days after you just lowered it. And then someone else catches on and removes standing as well, now you have to raise your efficiency again. Every time someone changes standing you have to check your efficiency and alter it. It seems rather tedious.

I was hoping we could settle on a relatively simple process that was a little bit better than the current and just try it out. Your proposal is dramatically different than the current. Maybe we end up there eventually, but its easier to get support for a tweaks than wholesale changes. I have a feeling that I already see where this discussion is heading. Lots of input, a final vote that doesn't pass, and then we're stuck with the current system.
 
You're saying establishing a host of objective, and some subjective criteria won't work out well long term?


If we're going to allow teams to get removed under it, we can also use it for efficiency.

I see nothing that suggests to me that it's a flawed system at this point. So far, it's working quite well.
It has barely been put to work, and several ANOs havent even voted yet. We are scrambling to enact more huge changes before we even see the effect of the last ones.

I think you may be twisting my words around here. I'm saying where are the 27 other scoring cards? How does an ANO know the bare minimum they need to be doing? You're basically asking 28 teams to continually guess and adapt to an ever changing field of metrics which can change at any time from any ANO due to individual discretion. ANOs don't even have to publish a scoring card, they can simply remove standing for anything. It's a hotbed for breeding passive aggressiveness and operator fear, our community has enough of that already.

Why so much push back against defining minimum involvement? Clearly that was the intent of Doc-003, but what it lacked was enforcement. The standing system is that enforcement. Now that we have system to enforce the laws, we can start defining them and holding people to them.

I don't understand the desire to leave everything so murky and unclear, how can we ever expect new applicants brought into the community to perform at a acceptable level when they can't even get a list of duties expected of them?Instead they need to parse 27 differing opinions for a direction. What ends up happening they will just follow the loudest and most frequent voice on Factomize and Discord, and just assume that the rest of the community agrees with what they are doing. This is inherently flawed IMO.
 
@David Chapman , wouldn't you rather know ahead of time that you have a defined runway to work with a lowered efficiency? Typically I'm assuming an ANO is lowering its efficiency to do some larger project. Doesn't it seem simpler just to say "hey, this is the scope of what I want to do, I'm going to give it 2 months to pan out, I'll update you then if I want to continue at a low efficiency". Rather than you lowering your efficiency to a new number (because you have enough standing initially) and slowly over time, people remove standing because they don't approve. To the point where midway through your project you don't have the funds to complete it? or achieve a set milestone?
Yes, I'd rather know ahead of time that I have a defined runway allotted by the Efficiency Bracket.

Does it seems simpler to say, "We're lowering to X which is within our Efficiency Bracket to do X" within the EXISTING SYSTEM? The existing system DESIGNED for efficient update so that, if you're communicating well and actually executing, people should theoretically support? And if they don't, there's probably a pretty good reason for that?

Right now everyone can set their own efficiency to whatever and people complain that they don't have any say. Well, if you give them a say, people are now saying thats burdensome and I don't want people to have a say directly (only through the automated system).
The easy ability to Give or Remove Standing gives people a say on efficiency and any other number of variables. That's the whole point of the system.

Even with your proposed system, you still have to monitor everything. If you lower your efficiency and 3 days later someone checks the post and says, I don't like this and takes away standing. Now you have to raise your efficiency 3 days after you just lowered it. And then someone else catches on and removes standing as well, now you have to raise your efficiency again. Every time someone changes standing you have to check your efficiency and alter it. It seems rather tedious.
The same can happen under your brand new, convoluted system. There's nothing stopping someone from removing Standing for an efficiency even if they don't like it. Or are you going to make that a rule? And who is going to enforce that?

I was hoping we could settle on a relatively simple process that was a little bit better than the current and just try it out. Your proposal is dramatically different than the current. Maybe we end up there eventually, but its easier to get support for a tweaks than wholesale changes. I have a feeling that I already see where this discussion is heading. Lots of input, a final vote that doesn't pass, and then we're stuck with the current system.
My proposal is not dramatically different. It uses the existing system and defined efficiency brackets. Your proposal require a whole new, convoluted manual system.
 
It has barely been put to work, and several ANOs havent even voted yet. We are scrambling to enact more huge changes before we even see the effect of the last ones.
So you think we shouldn't change things for awhile and let the dust settle and see what does need to improve instead of enact changes?

Fair enough, I'll close this thread after you close yours. Or is it you don't want to scramble to enact big changes that aren't yours?
 
So you think we shouldn't change things for awhile and let the dust settle and see what does need to improve instead of enact changes?

Fair enough, I'll close this thread after you close yours. Or is it you don't want to scramble to enact big changes that aren't yours?
We are honestly not scrambling to enact anything. Why should we close the thread? We simply asked for community feedback on what is deemed as sustainable regarding ANO expected duties, and what efficiency guidines could look like. We reiterated this several times in our proposal and comments. I'm speaking fairly reasonable logic here, I don't understand why you jump to say I don't like the ideas because they aren't mine. I've been singing the same tune on this subject for a few months now. I'm more than open to ideas from everyone, I just don't view this particular one as our best option. It's really nothing personal.
 
1. ANO X wants to lower their efficiency from 40% to 20% as they think they're doing a good job and want to scale. Their Standing is 97% which means Standing Parties think they are a capable team.
2. 20% is within their bracket so they lower to 20% and justify it within the existing system for exactly that, the Contributions forum.
3. Done.
I get this and I think it's a clever way of doing this, however, when someone votes to remove standing, imo, it means they think you should be booted out of the ANOs. So, I just have a hard time believing there will ever be an ANO with 97% standing who would consider dropping their efficiency. 97% is a great test score but here it means that there is another ANO who is voting to remove you. I agree with those saying let's let standing play out and then work on this, though having the conversation this early is a great start because I do really like the idea of a tiered efficiency with incentives for new ANOs. Strong opinion, loosely held, I don't think there will be much stratification in standing votes. I expect most ANOs to be at 100% with a few hanging around 40% - nothing in between.
 
Thanks for sharing your thoughts @Nate Miller

I do want to disagree with one very important point though:

97% is a great test score but here it means that there is another ANO who is voting to remove you.
Some will use it that way. The vast majority of Factomize's votes to Remove Standing will be because we feel the ANO can do better and we sincerely want to see exactly that.
 
@David Chapman That's what I thought - You think vote to remove standing is a message, I think its a verdict. I'm totally willing to eat crow on this one and see how it plays out because I know that we desire the same outcome - continued improvement of all ANOs.
We think it can be both. it is a verdict of current performance and also a verdict on an ANOs decision to change efficiency. And it Is message that "you need to improve" at current or lowered efficciency. There are ample opportunitty to give standing again if it turns out that ANO is performing better and doing good job.

The new system is intended to be dynamic and we should try to use it that way.

On other note we do not support a bracket system based on ranking this time, but expectations document should be updated with minimum efficiency based on price (which can be deviated from if ANO is over performing, but they must convincee standing parties that it is warrant).
 
We think it can be both. it is a verdict of current performance and also a verdict on an ANOs decision to change efficiency. And it Is message that "you need to improve" at current or lowered efficciency. There are ample opportunitty to give standing again if it turns out that ANO is performing better and doing good job.

The new system is intended to be dynamic and we should try to use it that way.

On other note we do not support a bracket system based on ranking this time, but expectations document should be updated with minimum efficiency based on price (which can be deviated from if ANO is over performing, but they must convincee standing parties that it is warrant).
Thank you for your post. I agree with you that a decision to either give or withdraw standing can be a verdict of current performance and a verdict on an ANO's decision to change efficiency. One of the great things about the new standing system is that it will regularly bring into focus how ANO's are performing and enables us to hold each other to account.
 
I must take some responsibility for this debate having been instrumental in making this thread and making some comments about bracketing which David has progressed here.

We run the risk that we will continue to debate whether one or the other of these approaches dominates as per my earlier post about either we don't have efficiency informing standing and have efficiency brackets or we have efficiency to inform standing. I have thought more about how these may coexist and apologize if my statement above has prompted any undue conflict.

I now realise that this really is a bit "chicken and egg" in other words it begs the question of what comes first: Is it standing that leads to running at a certain efficiency or is it running at a certain efficiency that (together with other things) leads to standing.

In the spirit trying to bring the parties together to constructively develop fair and appropriate ways to move the protocol forward why not have efficiency bracketing as a way of justifying an ANO's efficiency? In other words, visually if an ANO is below the agreed efficiency line for a given FCT price then there should and can be some good reasoning about why they are there:

This could be along the lines "I am here at this efficiency because I do/have done these things (that the protocol values as shown in a revised Doc003) and I have standing which confirms that I am in a bracket at which a certain efficiency level is justifiable." (This approach does not mean that an ANO is committed to operate at a certain level of efficiency it just means that they can do so if they choose, which then is linked to whether the ANOs are supportive.)

I would value thoughts about whether you think these things can coexist and how, so that we can develop them together in a way that enables us to move forward sufficiently quickly but also in a measured way to ensure this system works as intended.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
We would code the system in a manner where the Efficiency Brackets can be changed easily. If we start to moon and the Standing Parties think brackets need adjusted, no problem.
Tying it to Standing solves so many problems and provides incentivization structures we currently lack.
I like your proposal in the OP David. Clarity on efficiency expectations would be really helpful for the efficiency of the protocol moving forward, as you point out. In regard to this point I am replying to, I wonder if we would even need to change efficiencies if we mooned. In my mind it actually makes sense to keep them consistent, and rather than changing efficiency brackets, change the expectations of ANO's at those levels. I don't think its a bad thing if an ANO has $1MM USD in income if the expectations of what it delivers are in line with that.
 
Top