Please read through my post above, as I addressed this particular point there:You've kind of defeated your own point, here. "[...] diverse set of criteria [...]" (emphasis mine.)
You did not apply a set of criteria. You applied one criterion. This is why your decision is being called arbitrary.
(rest of post pertaining to the above cut out for brevity)
I have the feeling that this discussion is being presented in a light, which would imply that the vote of Factomatic and the former Guide Tor Paulsen somehow blocks Factomize from operating at 0% efficiency and from carrying out their development work at this efficiency. I absolutely disagree with that notion and I have explained at length why I feel that is not the case above. To re-iterate:If it would make people feeling strongly about our vote any better, I'd like to point out that what you describe above as a multi-factor evaluation process is exactly what we're doing, we're just assigning the factor "contributes at least 10% of ANO server revenue to the grant pool" a very large weight. It's not any different to the arbitrary criteria chosen by Factomize (or any other ANO for that matter) and the arbitrary weight they assign to each criterion.