Post #25553

7c9296462aae60af2480f8d9459123fa8234490947f2358d0998fd80d3cd9c90
dbe909cabd5293eefb52b745259656f14044a1e111dfdca14b4df6fdc6a400b0
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":1582547330,"post_data":{"edit_count":2,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"6e7e692e0e5b45892c5a506707316934771ce2ed96c2c43e5716b4ac720cc10a921281372724796ba269f1de79f06078a7e3e0b48926e47aed5af18bc8effeb4","node_id":59,"post_date":1582547203,"thread_id":3684,"user_id":8},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3684#post-25553"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Factomize has lowered its efficiency to 0%
Standing by its definition is a combination of factors you weigh to get to a vote of yes or no.

Using one argument even though objective and applying that both as a veto and to all situations means people really cannot execute as they have to fear everyone using their own vetoes.

Let's say you stick to 10%, what are you gonna do when the next infra ANO moves to 15%? Nobody knows your rules and as it is above 10% they should be fine right? I rather have people doing subjective voting as long as they explain what needs to change with regards to performance, involvement, output etc, than everyone make up their own absolute value and using that as a deal breaker.

For instance I have no problem with you scoring some negative points because you believe the grantpool should be used. If the sum of the total ends up in loss of standing fine.. But you are using it to make sure people move in your direction IMO. That will almost certainly create a negative feedback cycle.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top