Post #25551

7c9296462aae60af2480f8d9459123fa8234490947f2358d0998fd80d3cd9c90
e05f6f8b0b18e768e3f4d24811f170fcb2fa6c1a154a8b52639eec256f5f09da
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":1582544213,"post_data":{"edit_count":1,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"dc8191fb51fffd0b61f742042819e3da9158ba73d63bf55103eb0222aec1f69c8fceb123a6b9b64f7fb49d2bb5216b01582a3b3ebdab84a7812aab130a273b7f","node_id":59,"post_date":1582544163,"thread_id":3684,"user_id":114},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3684#post-25551"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Factomize has lowered its efficiency to 0%
We outlined our reasoning for not supporting ANOs operating at below 10% efficiency in our comments to both Factomize and DBGrow [USER=8]@Niels Klomp[/USER]. We believe that every single ANO should be making at least a small contribution to the grant pool, and efforts, which need a larger amount of funding, should be handled via the grant pool.

Yes, it can be argued that the criterion (ANO efficiency) and the percentage (10%) are both arbitrary, but at least they are objective, which is more than can be said of the criteria of pretty much any Standing Party. We chose one and are consistently applying it to all ANOs. We are doing this because we believe having all ANOs contribute at least something to the grant pool is beneficial for the entire ecosystem and in our priority list this comes above the individual preferences of ANOs, when their efficiency is concerned. The difference between 0% and 10% is also very small in $ terms at current FCT prices (~$750/month pre-tax), so we don't think that operating at 0% or 10% can make any significant impact to development or other efforts.

[I]We view the Standing system as a representation of the collective consensus of Standing parties. Having a diverse set of criteria from different ANOs is the only way we can ensure a holistic and fair assessment, as many ANOs are bound to prioritise different aspects in their vote (technical, legal, governance, business, marketing, efficiency, commercial projects, open-source projects, protocol usage, etc., etc.). As such, every Standing Party should have the freedom to select at least a portion of their criteria independently, and so long as these criteria are applied consistently across all ANOs, we do not see a problem. That is exactly what Factomatic has done here.[/I]

We also do not see a reason why Factomize would choose to oscillate between 0% and 40% efficiency based on the vote of [I]a mere two (or actually one)[/I] Standing Parties, as their overall Standing is not even remotely jeopardised from this. Overall, if Factomize believes this criterion is "lazy and stupid" they have every right to ignore it as such and continue operating at 0% without any real effect, until a point in time where a majority of ANOs may decide to adopt a similar criterion. At this point, Factomize would either have to accept the consensus of the Standing Parties -- that a majority have chosen to enforce a minimum efficiency -- and respect it, or they would risk losing their ANO spot. There is nothing contentious about this, it is exactly the way the Standing system is supposed to be functioning.

Speaking for myself now, I really hope that in a few months we don't have [I]any[/I] ANO with 100% Standing, as this shows the ecosystem is not demanding enough. It should be nearly impossible to satisfy the requirements of over 25 diverse and critical "judges" in the system and I would, in fact, encourage everyone to be setting high standards when they consider ANO Standing votes and to gradually increase the bar over time. This is the only way to ensure we as a community are developing and progress is being made.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top