Post #25337

a3323b503cfbe35b59b0bbd0915804be0dc396fe18c2de3d7ebc2e06a7899139
224ee74646ad1b9f5ccab9841a53b1f9c94155c91a0d80ca718b98d9f70e5e14
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":1582386053,"post_data":{"edit_count":2,"last_edit_date":1582386031,"last_edit_user_id":8,"message_sha512":"d59262774825c75dec2494440389c737348256c6816b5d94759f643f4d91915a529fb447a628276e5c78b8145c34c3ef327a8540bcde4cf0f083c31fd0a624c1","node_id":102,"post_date":1582385447,"thread_id":3806,"user_id":8},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3806#post-25337"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Tor Paulsen Removed Standing for BI Foundation
Yupz, what you see as a threat by me is what I see as a threat as well for our involvement, hence me bringing it up. If people really think we are going to listen to every single voice in this ecosystem versus making sure what is in the best interest of our company then they are mistaken. If people think that calling us out in market channels or other channels is helping they are mistaken. If people think that creating websites about what parties received for what has been delivered and think we will work with that, they are mistaken.

The fact that the above update apparently would be enough to get this vote turned around also says enough I think.

What you describe as working but not perfect, I indeed describe as a systemic risk to have entities of our size or bigger involved. MC left because of it. They might not have been active in governance (they even mentioned that as a reason), but they do have a name to uphold and in all honesty we don't know whether they were doing good things for the protocol behind closed doors. For an entity like us, that is not the question in the first place. Thinking using standing will expedite it, or have entities like us involved is naive I think. I have lost track of how many times I defended the protocol internally, so at the end of the day there is a fine line in how much an entity wants to put up with and how much resources it has to put in.

Especially if people start asking questions around people not working during holiday season.
It is kinda laughable. Next thing I have to run people asking vacation by the standing parties. I am not responding to any inquiries as I am a guide and CTO, and this is a product/project thing and I am in the middle of these. As I have already mentioned several times, we need to get better at it, and we are ensuring time from Abe for it. But thinking we will respond to every single question/voice is not gonna happen and there will always be friction.

But if 1-2 person ANO's think they can influence the way larger entities work or even worse not even think about what it would take to get them on board, then we are in real trouble. Hence why expansion of standing needs to be expanded rapidly.

I think in all of this only David (Chapman) once approached us in private about needing to do a better job at updates given what we are doing for the protocol, which I respect and is in line with how we interact socially in society
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top