Post #25561

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="Valentin Ganev, post: 25559, member: 114"]
Please read through my post above, as I addressed this particular point there:
And yet, my entire point stands (the rest of my post which you did not address in any way); by assigning such a large weight to this particular point, it clearly renders the entire rest of your scoring rubric moot. It makes no difference if you have 1, 10 or 100 points in your scoring rubric if one particular criterion adds or removes eleventy bajillion points whereas every other metric works on +/- 3 points.

[QUOTE="Valentin Ganev, post: 25559, member: 114"]
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.
No, this discussion is presented in a light which implies that assigning a disproportionately large amount of weight to one particular criterion, which makes it impossible to keep standing, is arbitrary and is a poorly designed system.

If your system made it so that if people who had failed (or middling) grants [B]and[/B] a poor track record for keeping the community up to date with their progress [B]and [/B]had made questionable funding choices in the past - if [I]they[/I] wanted to lower efficiency and were penalised enough to turn the vote into "remove standing", then it would not be arbitrary.

Your scoring system is arbitrary because it does not allow for any redeeming factors. That is literally the definition of "arbitrary".
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.