This entry might be using an old signature, or it was signed by a key that does not exist on the server.
Voting NO on anchor and Oracle master grants
[USER=114]@Valentin Ganev[/USER] That interpretation can work. But what about the Doc001 and what about being able to trust the standing parties to uphold the stable price and anchors no matter what?
You want a trustworthy party when making a decission to go with a protocol. Yes the discussion about providing updates is good. Yes choosing another approach when it doesn't happen is good. No potentially just trusting it will work itself out when the majority would have voted no, or acting like it is not that important is not my definition of a party I can trust when choosing for Factom.
As I said before in other occasions, I do hope people sometimes take the perspective of large entities when looking at the protocol and governance as a whole.