Post #25347

7c9296462aae60af2480f8d9459123fa8234490947f2358d0998fd80d3cd9c90
3f18fc8d1861a9b0b5b9b4fffd79074688d650719f79ab809a564e245e2566b2
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":1582387345,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"d63e859d8b17b9db54220cb76d36b486ff1dcbfe752429fd0bc73e3038a27d267365a58513b957d98b2dcbbd041b95555e1baf4c1db6c70d23e189efbd4c2cca","node_id":59,"post_date":1582387292,"thread_id":3684,"user_id":2},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3684#post-25347"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Factomize has lowered its efficiency to 0%
[QUOTE="Niels Klomp, post: 25344, member: 8"]
Interested to hear there response as to me [USERGROUP=6]@Factomize[/USERGROUP] is roughly the only entity in this system I would trust with running at 0% without much questions asked as they have always shown to have the interest of the protocol in mind.

The ANO remuneration and grantpool is about furthering the protocol. I as well as BIF/Sphereon prefer the grantpool above remuneration, but applying a general arbitrary limit against every single situation isn't correct IMO. Net result is that Factomize won't move forward at this point in time.
[/QUOTE]
I'm perfectly fine with questions being asked of us. They should be, in fact. And if, after all those questions, the reason for removal of Standing was "After proper evaluation of your proposal, we feel your efficiency is too low for the amount of work you'll be doing" then I'd be ok with it. An arbitrary number held across all ANOs as a single point of failure is lazy and stupid.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top