Post #25555

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.

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: 25553, member: 8"]
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.
I think you're missing my point, Niels. If a handful of ANOs decided to set their own criteria regarding efficiency or anything else for that matter (which I once again what to emphasise is fully within their rights) this in itself is not a veto and will have no effect whatsoever on the overall Standing of individual ANOs.

[I]Only if a critical mass of ANOs decided to use the same set of criteria[/I], do individual ANOs have to really start considering them. And if at that point you don't do it, you are going against what is essentially the consensus of the Standing Parties and you will rightfully be in danger of losing your spot. However, until then, you have all the flexibility you want, unless you're hellbent on having 100% Standing, which to put it bluntly is the ANO's issue not the concern of the entities doing the voting.

[QUOTE="Niels Klomp, post: 25553, member: 8"]
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.
We never said that operating at 10% or above efficiency automatically grants you Standing in our books. Our voting indicates so, as we have removed Standing from several ANOs operating at a significantly higher efficiency. We said that operating at below 10% efficiency will automatically mean we remove Standing at this point in time and the two are very different. If an infra ANO goes to 15%, they will be evaluated based on their contributions, same as anyone else operating at >=10% efficiency.

[QUOTE="Niels Klomp, post: 25553, member: 8"]
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.
I'm surprised by your comments to be honest. It's as if Factomatic hasn't invested the time to provide each ANO we voted for individual feedback and as if the discussion about a minimum efficiency is happening out of the blue. We've had this discussion multiple times already, both in the form of a minimum efficiency enforced in our governance documents, as well as discussions about switching all ANOs to infra and doing all work via the grant pool.

If it would make people feeling strongly about our vote any better, I'd like to point out that what you describe above as a multi-factor evaluation process is exactly what we're doing, we're just assigning the factor "contributes at least 10% of ANO server revenue to the grant pool" a very large weight. It's not any different to the arbitrary criteria chosen by Factomize (or any other ANO for that matter) and the arbitrary weight they assign to each criterion.

If we are asked to defend our decision further, we have no problem doing so, however we would like to see the same type of questions asked of all Standing Parties for their criteria and weights [I]and[/I] the same level of in-depth answers first, before we can justify allocating more time to answer queries directed towards our choice of factors.

[I]Should any Standing Party feel that our decision to choose this criterion affects the ecosystem negatively to a very large extent, we have no issue with this Standing Party removing Standing from us for damaging the protocol (or however the exact reason will be phrased) without fear of us reciprocating, so long as the same measure is applied to all other ANOs.[/I]
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.