Process Discussion Re: Shotgun approach, assumed by Niels

Secured
#1
For not spamming in the grant proposal thread:

What I do have to say, but that is to all people creating proposals; Is that we are in a tight situation. Sphereon made a really deliberate choice to only list the core dev grant and internalise that one with something like 40%. (the token taxonomy thing is available for the whole ecosystem and only at cost price with risks for us as well if price falls). We have been internalising almost every single grant (if not every single one) to date.

In a time where FCT is at 4 dollars, i would like to see some more parties taking the approach of internalising. If I see some parties trying a shotgun approach with only a few developers at their disposal I am seeing a strategy that I don't really like. Everybody has to rate all the proposals and of course every party will defend their grants and some at the expense of others. I see several entities having something like an ask of 25+% combined of the total pool doesn't make sense to me
There are not many entities having many grant applications in this round, so I assume you're referring to De Facto.
So I want to publicly answer you here.

Grants:
--

1. There is nothing bad in applying for few projects — we give community a choice what projects are important and what not. As far as I remember, few rounds ago BIF/Sphereon has applied with 8 (or similar number) of proposals and not all of them were funded. I don't remember you mentioning shotgun approach in that times.

2. All of our grant proposals are well prepared:
1) We withdrew Factom Open API Identity proposal from the previous GR in order to wait for DID spec — now we reapply with DID integration instead of Factom Identities
2) Factom Name Service was proposed in November 2018 and that was too early for it. Right now, with FIP/FIS system, multiple wallets/explorers and other stuff on-going I think we may start developing the specification — it's time for this.
3) Factom Mobile Wallet is a new project, that was announced few weeks ago. But explorations regarding technologies and security has started long time before this (in June)

3. Following BIF good practice, in all of grants above we decided to internalize some costs and use lower rate for development.

4. I am completely OK having 1 of 3, 2 of 3 or none of 3 grants approved.
That's how grant pool should work — define the best projects and fund them.
As more well-prepared applications we have, as more competition and as better for the protocol.

Accountability problems:
--

5. I have pointed out at the accountability problems with FAT grants.
It's sad that my statements were ignored, questions are unanswered and topic was changed (as DBGrow usually did it, when I raise any concerns) and flavoured with positive comments.
But everyone are free to have own decision, not that one that Guides highlighted.

every party will defend their grants and some at the expense of others
FYI @Niels Klomp, I am not willing to get all De Facto's grants funded. If you think pointing out the problems of other grantees is a way to protect my own grants — that's up to you, but it's completely untrue.
I would raise the same issues even not having any grant proposals on table in this round.
 
Secured
#2
There are not many entities having many grant applications in this round, so I assume you're referring to De Facto.
So I want to publicly answer you here.
Anton. I am going to say this only once. You assume too much, too early and jump to conclusions quite a lot all the time. Ask clarification (like you do know, albeit yet again with a conclusion) first before making statements. Same for instance with the full vs wrapper clients. Because you make assumptions and reach out to somebody in private a grant that IMO should be funded this round is now revoked. You even go out of your way to protect part of a PHP client you have created in 8 hours, which is not a client in my book.
The shotgun approach I also mentioned in a Kompendium grant thread. So no it was not only directed at you. I hope by now you know (as this response again will show) that I am not shying away from bluntly speaking my mind at times.

1. There is nothing bad in applying for few projects — we give community a choice what projects are important and what not. As far as I remember, few rounds ago BIF/Sphereon has applied with 8 (or similar number) of proposals and not all of them were funded. I don't remember you mentioning shotgun approach in that times.
Yes and Sphereon has the resources to execute them all in the same timeframe. We are 15+ people and the standing parties decided to reward them almost all (if not all). Just look at the amount of work and FCT you request in total given the resources at your disposal and then start complaining about an ask of 50k dollars for smart contract functionality which will bring a lot of value to this ecosystem.

FYI @Niels Klomp, I am not willing to get all De Facto's grants funded. If you think pointing out the problems of other grantees is a way to protect my own grants — that's up to you, but it's completely untrue.
I would raise the same issues even not having any grant proposals on table in this round.
If you are not willing to get them all funded that proves my point. Why not only list the top grants this round then?
Regarding your 2nd statement. It certainly comes across that way and I have had multiple people comment in private about your approach in these threads. What you do with that info is up to you.
 
Secured
#3
Would like to leave a quick note that I really appreciate Anton asking all the hard questions in several grant threads. This is needed, and not many have the necessary balls to do that right in front of people who have the power to vote about you. So big respect for that! That people approach Niels in Private to whine about that is a sneaky move, if they have a point they could just reply in public to Antons Post.

Also to me it became obvious that there is something between BIF/Niels and Anton that seems somewhat personal and/or political. I hope Niels has the strength to not abuse his Power and influence in this discussion.
 
Secured
#4
There is nothing going on between Anton and Niels/BIF or whoever except for the above. I can assure you that. Anton only is often quick in everything. I like his enthusiasm as I have said many times.

That people do not want to do the confrontation (in public) is a choice. Not everybody has the will, guts, taste to do that and being involved with a discussion that is negative by default.

Not sure what you are implying with your last paragraph btw. Asking critical questions is fine. But having people revoke proposals because of private discussions, based on false assumptions where you have been directly involved is not. Saying price of certain proposals is too high based on false assumptions is also not ok. I would be abusing my power if I would do all of this behind closed doors with people, or if I would pressure somebody into doing something, which is obviously not the case.
 
Secured
#5
But having people revoke proposals because of private discussions, based on false assumptions where you have been directly involved is not.
WTF Niels? Why you continue telling everywhere that I asked someone to withdraw the proposal?

In private chat I mentioned that we have PHP lib and shared a link to https://bitbucket.org/canonical-ledgers/factomize-xenforo-add-on/src/master/FactomAPI.php to Jason.

Jason saw this script and it was his own decision to withdraw, I have never told about withdrawal.
That withdrawal action made me think, that Kompendium wants to make wrapper (it's pretty logical from the withdrawal action).

@Jason Gregoire I give you a permission to post our private discussion about API clients. Or just confirm my words.
 
Secured
#6
Follow the logic please before making such strong statements:
1. I shared a link privately to Jason, because I saw his proposal (before grant round started)
2. I have never asked to withdraw proposal
3. Jason decided to withdraw proposal (that surprises me)
4. I made assumption (after withdrawal): if they withdraw it, then they are going to make the same with grant.
Then they apply for wrapper.

The opposite (full client) was never stated in grant proposal, so I asked about it and then asked to change a grant proposal according to new info.
 
Secured
#9
No it’s not, Jason.
You guys made me a villain, but the reality is the withdrawal is your own initiative and you saw the client I sent to you.

So why did you withdraw if you wanted to make full-clients?

I am done with all this politics.
Not willing to spend my time on this anymore.
Anton, I’m sorry you feel this way. Please know that I mean you no ill will, consider you and your team a fantastic asset to the community, and I’m confident and eager to work with you on value-adding initiatives for the community in the future.
 
Secured
#10
WTF Niels? Why you continue telling everywhere that I asked someone to withdraw the proposal?
Read again please and it proves my point again. Tell me where do I say that you told someone to remove it?

"Having somebody revoke it" is the simple consequence, it says nothing about whether you made somebody do it, strongly suggested it or something else. It is just the end result
 
Secured
#11
To be clear.
@Anton Ilzheev and I have had a private chat. Where we made clear to one another that this certainly not personal or anything. A misunderstanding mixed with not being able to talk to each other face to face, where emotions are not conveyed easily.

Let also be very clear that I respect @Anton Ilzheev very much for asking the questions he does and he should continue to do so. I have said my piece about it and said I would only say it once, which I did in this thread so no need to repeat.

The message I want to convey here is that sometimes people feel attacked, misunderstood, sabotaged, not appreciated. That is something we need to work on, because it rises more to the surface at times where there is competition in the system where the amount of standing parties is really limited. One of the reasons why I want FCT holders in the discussions and ideally voting as well. It balances out the limited number of parties, provides different insights and support for others, like @AllHandsOnDeck did in this thread. Also if people feel that way it is important to engage in conversation with eachother, because otherwise it becomes something that festers and at one point will result in people not being able to objectively listen to one another anymore.

Final note.
The price of FCT is at all time lows. There is a negative sentiment in the market channels on Discord. To a degree that certain people have had enough and stepped back from engaging. People that are doing very valuable work for the protocol. These are the times to make sure that if there is any disagreement we talk to each other and make sure we will only get stronger. Because we will make it through these though times, I am 100% confident of that. And when we do, we will have so much to show the world.
< insert hallelujah here ;) >