Post #25559

7c9296462aae60af2480f8d9459123fa8234490947f2358d0998fd80d3cd9c90
afd40f58b3c972b5e2db347a0f8ec017e8fb39d6fded0f48ddca0455a8a386eb
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":1582576551,"post_data":{"edit_count":3,"last_edit_date":1582576445,"last_edit_user_id":114,"message_sha512":"87ee99e70e64c2abd2fa245942c68dddaa6ec3c323fd5e1b6a237aca3b002a720725b81e1f959c681dadfe8b7bf725e1a37cec809eb35daa73c41b8d06648d61","node_id":59,"post_date":1582558013,"thread_id":3684,"user_id":114},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3684#post-25559"}
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="Fillip H., post: 25558, member: 432"]
You've kind of defeated your own point, here. "[...] [B]diverse set[/B] of criteria [...]" (emphasis mine.)

You did not apply a [B][U]set[/U][/B] of criteria. You applied [B][U]one[/U][/B] criterion. This is why your decision is being called arbitrary.
(rest of post pertaining to the above cut out for brevity)
[/QUOTE]
Please read through my post above, as I addressed this particular point there:

[QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I have the feeling that this discussion is being presented in a light, which would imply that the vote of Factomatic and the former Guide Tor Paulsen somehow blocks Factomize from operating at 0% efficiency and from carrying out their development work at this efficiency. I absolutely disagree with that notion and I have explained at length why I feel that is not the case above. To re-iterate:
[LIST]
[*]one or a handful of Standing Parties setting criteria, which result in another ANOs losing standing based on those criteria, is not at all an issue for the ANOs losing standing [I]unless the majority of ANOs decide to set the same criteria[/I]. In such case, we would [I]all[/I]be forced to abide by this consensus. In the case of Factomize, as has been pointed out multiple times already, the fact that Factomatic and Tor Paulsen removed Standing due to an efficiency limit we chose:
[LIST]
[*]does not jeopardise Factomize's overall standing;
[*]does not prevent them from pursuing the development work in question, as there is no effect on Factomize if they operate at 0% (due to the above);
[/LIST]
[/LIST]
The only scenario in which Factomize is somehow affected by our decision is if you guys are hellbent on having 100% Standing while also operating at 0% efficiency. We cannot bend our grading criteria to satisfy individual Standing % targets set by ANOs, as it would defeat the entire purpose of the Standing system.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top