Post #25113

7c9296462aae60af2480f8d9459123fa8234490947f2358d0998fd80d3cd9c90
8ded0f6ef4ca3258e0b1046ed3aed025dc106c343935f3bb542fc3decbfb09ef
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":1582235132,"post_data":{"edit_count":2,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"987f11f09592d737fd4821aa72e712d686cbc354ea1e8e4635a518c36b759b4eef7b51c9aabf43ee2b2851ba20b84947c3822e5665ce2cbaf1a1f215d02ba21d","node_id":59,"post_date":1582235008,"thread_id":3684,"user_id":114},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3684#post-25113"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Factomize has lowered its efficiency to 0%
Given the timing of this efficiency change, the discussions Factomize has had with GoI about their efficiency, as well as the opening comments in this thread, Factomatic is concerned that the main driver behind this is not a new project opportunity, but a response to those discussions. Can you assure the community that this is not the case? Factomize has done an outstanding job on a number of development efforts, but we cannot approve of an efficiency change if the catalyst is a disagreement on the efficiency of another ANO.

If memory serves me right, this is also not the first time that Factomize reduced their efficiency to work on a secret project and the last time this happened, you eventually pulled the plug on the project. What makes you believe it will be different this time around and how certain are you that there will be any tangible benefit for the protocol?
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top