Participating Projects

Chronicled

Project Description

What are the purposes, goals, or scope of the project? If there are metrics to measure success, what are they?

See website — product verification is the focus here today.

What, if any, are the coordinating entities, and what are their functions? (For example, a foundation, software development corporation, DAO, etc.)

Chronicled; also the node operators; solution providers; individual companies — there is a working group of pharmaceutical companies who sign an agreement and pay a fee; users of the product verification service do so via a contract directly w/ Chronicled as customers of Chronicled.

How are participants and users of the project identified? (For example, by public/private cryptographic keypair, wallet number, government ID, etc.) Are there restrictions on who can participate? If so, how are they implemented?

The system is permissioned. Each company is identifiable by its GS1 GLN [the GLN is the GS1 Identification Key used for any location (physical, operational or legal) that needs to be identified for use in the supply chain], and there is manual KYC to verify it.

Stakeholder Groups

Does the project’s software code delineate groups with particular functions? (For example, those who can propose changes, arbitrate disputes, or vote tokens on behalf of others.)

There is no voting and no software driven governance. When onboarded, a company has specific abilities / access / roles based on what they do in the industry. Part of KYC and onboarding.

Any firm that meets the definition of a market participant is free to join without exclusion. Very open.

Are there other important groups either constituted informally, specified through contractual arrangements, or based on geography/choice of law?

Solution providers or companies themselves can run nodes (SAP has the contract with Chronicled and the pharma companies work with SAP; other providers are in a similar position to SAP; these solution providers do some of the KYC functions.)

All node operators will be a member of the governance group after go-live.

Goals and Implementation

What behaviors does the project seek to encourage, or discourage? How are such behaviors incentivized?

No tokens; companies that run nodes have an interest in solving the business problem, i.e. meeting regulatory requirements. That’s all the incentive anyone needs today. No mining, no inflation, no slashing, no token.

(For operational projects): How well are the incentives and governance mechanisms functioning in practice? Are there metrics to measure the effectiveness of governance?

N/A

Are there systems to pay for infrastructure, protocol upgrades, development work, network enhancements and/or other work deemed to be in the interest of the network? If so, how do they operate?

Users are paying to access the system. Node operators pay to run their own nodes. No other structures or institutions exist currently.

Governance Powers

What makes a governance decision associated with this project legitimate or illegitimate?

Chronicled says so (and the users don’t object).

The stated values of the system are “Industry first; companies second; Chronicled third” and Chronicled is intent on showing that nobody is getting an advantage over anyone else. There’s a shared value that every global rule needs to equally beneficial to all. “Consensus through collaboration.” Some needs can be met w/ 1:1 interactions w/ Chronicled. There was one individual whose requests couldn’t be honored. The system mantra is to serve the industry dispassionately and equitably. Chronicled earns a reasonable profit. The “Network Charter” states some of the shared values and some more technical expectations as well. The respondents were firm in saying “Blockchain is a team sport.”

Who has power to introduce governance proposals, and how does that process operate?

Any node operator can introduce change proposals of their own or from customers; any issues raised will be addressed by Chronicled. The ‘true north’ is the business requirement to be solved and the regulations to be followed.

Who has policy-setting (“legislative") power to decide on proposals, and how does that process operate?

There is a functioning method of establishing consensus via collaboration and discussion.

Who has implementation (“executive”) power to execute proposals once decided upon, and how does that process operate?

For a software upgrade for example (planned vs emergency), it’s the node operators who follow the Network Charter.

Who has interpretive (“judicial”) power to resolve disputes over application of a policy to a specific instance, and how does that process operate? What can the interpretive power be used to mandate?

Chronicled takes the lead. The need for governance is light because the system has been designed to be light. The “industry first” value deflects most disputes — more than one might imagine. The contracts that people sign coming in (that Chronicled designed) have some teeth about ensuring that nodes run well. The working group is the venue for airing issues and finding resolution. The rules do have an escalation path, which has been never used; all participants seek to avoid it.

What checks and balances, or systems of accountability, exist among these governance powers?

If Chronicled got out of hand, people would leave the network. There is a different work group for each specific problem or problem type. There are no obvious competitive advantages to be seized by tweaking the system, so folks have a primary incentive to just make the “plumbing” work.

Governance Procedure

Governance Procedure

Are there systems for non-binding signals or binding votes on governance decisions? If so, please describe them in detail.

The group is small enough to have conversations. There is GS1 that Chronicled supports; GS1 has a rule that any dissenting vote needs to be heard. The guidance has been “avoid voting.” There are 800 manufacturers and 3 main distributors (100+ distributors in total) involved with the system, which would complicate voting. There’s another [blockchain] group out there doing a big arrange-the-chairs exercise around voting; the respondents are glad to be avoiding it.

Are there distinctions between decisions made by ordinary processes (for example, majority votes) and those which require extraordinary processes (for example, supermajority votes)? Or are there non-standard processes you would, or have, used in emergency situations? Explain as appropriate.

There is a distinction, that if something is broken, Chronicled gets to just fix it and notify folks. There is a focus on consensus and collaboration, so no, no levels of decision making.

Are there aspects that can never be changed through governance processes, short of a contentious hard fork of the network? If so, how is that ensured?

Not applicable. The priorities may be the closest thing (Industry first, etc)

Are there mechanisms that make changing the project easier or harder?

Everything is hard. 😉

What revisions to governance mechanisms have been made, or are under consideration, and why?

One of our ethos elements is, Chronicled has no access to anyone’s data. There is of course the possibility of errors and mistakes; there may be interim controls in place that can be used to recover from error states, that they can give up once things are more solid and stable. E.g. access to troubleshooting data.

If there are any significant aspects of the project’s governance that you have not described, please provide details here.

“The only thing we can think of is, that there is a lot of flexibility in setting the conditions for joining the organization, so we can include as many as possible.”

  • There are three standards bodies that are collaborated with — GS1, HDA and PDSA. Chronicled has great working relationships with them and doesn’t seek to step into their turf.
  • Chronicled’s governance is narrow and operational, by design. The goal is to attract users to solve a problem, and to minimize the overhead. They don’t want to get into general standards setting or any governance that can be yielded up to a better fit organization.
  • Several participants have said they couldn’t call these meetings because they would taint it by who they are — Chronicled gets to be ‘neutral convener’ or Switzerland in these matters.

Other Information