Post #25295

a3323b503cfbe35b59b0bbd0915804be0dc396fe18c2de3d7ebc2e06a7899139
ea7e6be4b4cb33555539de60ac6e5bc0973371bbea7d825013e39be9d6223cf7
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":1582371574,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"93d3958683582455071e647b2ad37b9b01699ca94e8d8d50daac7023f677ebe6615a2a871cfa762708376cd54c2fabbb8fffad7247a7315e985f48a0691f5702","node_id":102,"post_date":1582371555,"thread_id":3806,"user_id":8},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3806#post-25295"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Tor Paulsen Removed Standing for BI Foundation
Depends on how you look at it.

They need to be upheld to the same standards as you need a baseline, but as it is now I believe it will not work and certainly will not scale.

Take the oil company example I mentioned above. That is just one example and Tor obviously knows which company this is. Do people really believe we will be providing insight into our sales and opportunities pipelines in a push for transparency?

I am just approaching this as my role for BIF/Sphereon and stipulating the problem we have in this area. We can only be very vague if people would expect insights into everything and that would hurt us more than not mentioning anything at all.

It would make sense to me that if a larger entity is clearly doing good things for the protocol that gets taken into account at the same time. Thinking parties that are really capable of advancing the protocol will fit in current governance requirements is naive I believe
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top