Post #25562

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="Fillip H., post: 25561, member: 432"]
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.
No, your point does not stand in my view. You are challenging the weights we assign to different criteria in our grading and we cannot approve other Standing Parties dictating the weight we assign to each criteria because they disagree with the ones we're using. I find it strange that I even have to say this.

That's the reason I also didn't address the rest of your original post, as it's based on the premise that we have chosen one criterion that outweighs the rest of the aspects we're considering and that you think this doesn't make sense. That's effectively what we have done and I have already said why we did it: we deem the Grant pool to be absolutely crucial to the ecosystem and if you're an ANO you [I]must[/I] make a meaningful contribution to the grant pool, if you want to receive Standing from Factomatic.

I understand you disagree with this and I respect your opinion. I expect you to respect our chosen grading criteria as well and I'm also starting to expect the same vigor in challenging other ANOs' votes. I'm really looking forward to the justification of the votes of some of the other Standing Parties should this happen 🍿

[QUOTE="Fillip H., post: 25561, member: 432"]
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".
While I agree the percentage chosen is arbitrary, the idea of pushing ANOs to operate at a minimum efficiency is most definitely not arbitrary. There is a very clear reason to do so: to increase the contributions to the grant pool, which benefits the entire ecosystem. The choice of a criterion (i.e. efficiency) is also far from arbitrary as well -- there have been a lot of discussions of pushing ANOs to higher efficiency in way or another, as I have mentioned above.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.