Post #25358

a3323b503cfbe35b59b0bbd0915804be0dc396fe18c2de3d7ebc2e06a7899139
be00b76180fc56e68530552cc52442aba4cb5282fe17f2eb7a5a8b435de37b14
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":1582388313,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"8468c61be21e93a151b3b2b95f581c47b558f003c041bd67bfd9211afca895914e4d03e0e6bb021c14678d6864598eb892eda20e1a5b8ee1bba7faa06c7856f3","node_id":102,"post_date":1582388276,"thread_id":3806,"user_id":24},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3806#post-25358"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Tor Paulsen Removed Standing for BI Foundation
[QUOTE="Niels Klomp, post: 25356, member: 8"]
What goes wrong here IMO is that some parties are using one argument in determening standing. Whilst standing is the combination of factors. Making it about one thing is using it as a weapon to get people to follow your way. It doesn't work like that, because different people have different opinions and it sets bad precedents.
[/QUOTE]
Standing is not necessarily a combination of factors. In fact each standing party may use what criteria they like to extend standing one of my "dealbreakers" is 30% efficiency or lower. It is also not the only one as evident by all the standing I extended to other parties today, with reasons provided.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top