Post #25148

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.

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
(Paragraph from Doc 107)
Each grant application requires two separate voting actions, an Approve/Disapprove vote and a rank-based vote, except for the governance-defined grants (Guide pay, Anchor, and Oracle) which will only have an Approve/Disapprove vote if there is no competing grants. The Approve/Disapprove vote marks whether the standing party believes the grant meets the threshold for eligibility for the grant round.

[QUOTE="Niels Klomp, post: 25143, member: 8"]
So the only option was to abstain....

Niels, I do not agree with your interpretation of the above.

The text says that the governance-defined grants will not be ranked in case there are no competing grants. Indeed, there were no competing grants and those grants could be not ranked on Factomize (they were fixed at the top).

The text also says that the governance-defined grants [I]will only have an Approve/Disapprove option in case of no competition[/I]. That's what they had and some entities chose to not approve them for the reasons outlined above. It is the right of Standing Parties to approve or disapprove any grant, including the ones defined in governance, as any Standing Party may believe the grant does not meet the threshold for eligibility for the grant round (as per Doc 107).

If we believe that those grants should always get a free pass, an amendment to our governance documents should be suggested and brought up for ratification.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.