Post #25125

fcf118844bd696317240f189be85a58f24a65acb9cbd1264178b6f3b46967945
fa725fe371645683cc16b3f5c252d8ad20df16624299e6abdda742b6efabef83
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":1582249431,"post_data":{"edit_count":2,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"9447e83682845459448be62e08fa90c3453a98a0b076e579e39f1f5189a1ddf4587f8c65495dae207b1a646f204b8c4c8954fee03308a53a207cb15999dcf838","node_id":52,"post_date":1582249277,"thread_id":3423,"user_id":114},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3423#post-25125"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Voting NO on anchor and Oracle master grants
I find the premise that the protocol would untangle if those grants were not approved far fetched tbh. The security of the protocol and the stability of the EC price is not at risk if those grants are not approved, it's at risk if no one is willing to pay for the tx fees (not to mention that the centralized nature of the anchor master is a far bigger security concern than finding the money to pay for the fees). I would happily contribute towards the fees out of pocket, should one of these grants not be approved in the future.

To answer the original question, we did not approve those grants for the reasons outlined by Tor above. We find it unacceptable that there is no reporting, despite a myriad of requests to provide those. We will continue with this no approval policy in the future.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top