Post #25031

7c9296462aae60af2480f8d9459123fa8234490947f2358d0998fd80d3cd9c90
8d5a198328855488180e8ae2f9ed76b3ad72f24761563fd7416bb4b5db10add7
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":1582194095,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"eb96f1c64af76802a92d795ba13b18f424ae2d00ea9b82a3bb5f3d8530d1930d3c09a2ff3452c76a4394d727ccd97c513b777d67bed55b1d3f10bda9fcaa8410","node_id":59,"post_date":1582194031,"thread_id":3684,"user_id":24},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3684#post-25031"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Factomize has lowered its efficiency to 0%
[USER=175]@WB[/USER] thanks for the input. I am personally not in favor of a system where your payouts are dependent on your ranking, but I would support an amendment where an expected minimum efficiency is tied to Factoid price. In fact I will suggest the formally in a few weeks (right now there are too many issues going on at the same time (ANOs system online, grant factomd-update later today, guide process amendment and I know that somebody is just about to put up the grant system for amendment too... I'll let those things settle and then formally suggest it.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top