Post #12979

b2d5a5689ea2c487fe677e7085ee6d61f826b2f9a8a8f75e3653746cbd6bf24c
d2509a73559a7018cb784f03f39b8cb48ea44efb4281845bcd63a13606ed77b5
Signature not verified

This entry might be using an old signature, or it was signed by a key that does not exist on the server.

{"entry_date":1551212844,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"ebf130f4fd37f32f9dc1dee88388fb683e0b6569d05bee2e0aa697becfc4c239c72dacbdc13e950b38d29392caa3c92ea8dec6e7879a32085f8d105150e14e97","node_id":70,"post_date":1551212842,"thread_id":1690,"user_id":8},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/1690#post-12979"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Centis BV
[QUOTE="Mike Buckingham, post: 12951, member: 164"]Thank you for volunteering for this challenging and valuable role.

At this stage I have one question for all of the prospective guides:

[I]If you were able to change only one thing during your tenure what would that be, why would you choose it and what would you specifically bring that would make a difference to the outcome?[/I]

(I recognise that certain guides have already made some of these things explicit in their statement and do not expect them to have to repeat that, in which case a partial answer or simple reference to their statement will suffice.)[/QUOTE]
One thing we need the most IMO is additional standing parties as I mentioned in my opening post and have been mentioning on several occasions to prevent centralization of power and competition/infighting because current standing parties are also competitors in some cases (of which the grants are the most apparent). In order to achieve this we need technical solutions in the form of on-chain voting, standing, working toward as much on-chain governance as possible. I hope by now people know that I can combine high-level and critical thinking combined with technical expertise to provide my insights in how to solve problems. Then there is the point that I have been the guide that probably had pushed pursuing the additional standing the hardest. Where I have failed IMO is accepting that the technical realization of some components (identies, on-chain voting), would be required for first steps. The problem is hard and as a technical person you seek solutions by default in technical solutions. I proposed for instance to create self-organizing add interim standing for FCT holders. I didn't push that hard enough, as I knew back then (few months ago), that actual on-chain solutions would be at least 6-12 months out. I will make sure that we will pursue interim solutions and at least get timelines clear, so people know what to expect with regards to on-chain governance
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top