Post #25156

fcf118844bd696317240f189be85a58f24a65acb9cbd1264178b6f3b46967945
2900ffaba99d1fd406eab54403b07971dc23d2cc072c546d5bccf9e84709e13f
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":1582285251,"post_data":{"edit_count":1,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"04d21f0d2057a7548eae2a4efe5ab87d4b24d8eaa3c2c98b9b4890921f1f00cd58baa4c97bc7fac82cd0c32bcefcb6b417b67e4138c53831f6f35af973369904","node_id":52,"post_date":1582285134,"thread_id":3423,"user_id":114},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3423#post-25156"}
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 understand your concern, Niels and I assure you we did not take this decision lightly. We're well aware of the importance of having anchoring and an oracle for determining the EC price.

Where we seem to have a difference of opinion is in the consequences of this vote, should those grants have not been approved. I am not convinced that it would have been an issue that jeopardises the security or the stability of the network, as we're a decentralised ecosystem after all, and as mentioned above I personally would have had no issue stepping up to cover the txs costs and would have applied for a backpay grant next ground round after providing proper reporting.

To me the much bigger issue is the fact that there is a single entity operating both of these critical components. I don't have nearly enough experience in communicating with large entities who are interested in the protocol, but wouldn't this fact be a bigger hurdle of adoption for them compared to several entities not approving of the grants (and even compared to the grants themselves not being approved)?
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top