Post #25030

7c9296462aae60af2480f8d9459123fa8234490947f2358d0998fd80d3cd9c90
13c3f359ceca8494a98975fe001011a7a9e25a054a0861a9603b0b5c0e203cec
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":1582189611,"post_data":{"edit_count":2,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"c3e14f25751f14ed4bdd2eb74042b933de513b025a4a7b059891bd1bdbfff28f84ebb5bd56661fcd54323f067c65618599b826c5fd7906c677d0b1f9e89e82d8","node_id":59,"post_date":1582189503,"thread_id":3684,"user_id":175},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3684#post-25030"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Factomize has lowered its efficiency to 0%
[QUOTE="Anton Ilzheev, post: 25029, member: 35"]
Not sure if sarcasm is relevant Alex :)
I don’t think that David would ruin Factomize reputation in the Factom ecosystem with low accountability and under-performance at their chosen efficiency.
[/QUOTE]

Sarcasm or not, there've been a lot of 'mystery projects' as of late. You tell me how many of those have worked out up to this point. I don't doubt Factomize's ability to deliver, but in the way this is worded, this triggers copycat behaviour and conversely many more non-productive discussions.

Thankfully we have a fix for that.

[USER=24]@Tor Paulsen[/USER] I think a logical step to take is for the guides to discuss David's proposed efficiency bracket system, work out a real proposal based on ANO feedback and put it to a vote. Tying efficiency ranges to standing would prevent copycat behaviour by those who lack the standing to.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top