Post #25518

7c9296462aae60af2480f8d9459123fa8234490947f2358d0998fd80d3cd9c90
2ba6e14bf4a095ba2adf50d568792d34ce0607bd30a48b81603cad0adf246803
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":1582486575,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"05eac7689fa4e92894723b5db3d59c4f5fac3938eac7c99e9dbb770747d5cc912ce47eca1ce76249b53ff327f6539cadd213037340ed3fcc64db82784afa8029","node_id":59,"post_date":1582486539,"thread_id":3684,"user_id":19},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3684#post-25518"}
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="David Chapman, post: 25339, member: 2"]
As two Standing Parties ([USERGROUP=23]@Factomatic[/USERGROUP] and [USER=24]@Tor Paulsen[/USER]) have set arbitrary "X% Efficiency or lower we remove Standing" benchmarks rather than evaluate on case by case basis that have resulted in Factomize losing Standing, we have decided not to move forward with these projects. We cannot risk more Standing Parties taking on those benchmarks and Factomize's future be at risk.

As such, we will not further the protocol at lower efficiency and our dev will no doubt be seeing work outside this ecosystem.

We will be increasing our efficiency back up to 40%.
[/QUOTE]
This is unfortunate. RewardChain would have liked to have seen you moving forward with these projects.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top