Post #25313

a3323b503cfbe35b59b0bbd0915804be0dc396fe18c2de3d7ebc2e06a7899139
aa045bda53d0bd70e037590b1f2199acc4b818a76e8d4fa418526728113ccb6c
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":1582378532,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"b88f4688e50692dab4227c0dfc05daff43dd6a3fad4baf44359c99a8086b1943e66c2b2410cdc90be3d9384563f5f1132f093c0c2aef51bdf4f3a73da9904fce","node_id":102,"post_date":1582378478,"thread_id":3806,"user_id":84},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3806#post-25313"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Tor Paulsen Removed Standing for BI Foundation
This type of infighting that we are seeing now across the board is the reason I have been pushing for infra ANO only and everything else through the grant pool. There would be a lot less pressure on the standing parties with a system like that as every extra dime spent would have to go through the grant pool process which requires a lot more transparency.

While I agree that a very simple, short and sweet update from BIF would have been appropriate long time ago, I tend to not support the fact that the promotion/demotion system is being used as a weapon to request something like an update.

BI Foundation's efficiency is at 35% right now and you are receiving around 15-20 000$ more than an infra ANO and I believe you are bringing this value many times over as a whole. While our governance is important and a report would certainly be expected every few months, isn't it a bit harsh to remove standing for this while the overall contribution are a net positive ?

If we keep going down this path with our governance, teams with a lot of potential will keep walking away or not be joining our ranks.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top