Post #25567

7c9296462aae60af2480f8d9459123fa8234490947f2358d0998fd80d3cd9c90
b4fbeeaad3a9f3b0de52023f9115ec28ee9bf493b3e9112db41853dda2b3178a
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":1582570311,"post_data":{"edit_count":1,"last_edit_date":1582570260,"last_edit_user_id":8,"message_sha512":"905e8b084d85cb0b51d205bbfa5fe4785fcff6966cfdb936a974203c624cb715182de7350bc8867c67491263ea32fcc3ed2fae849774c4fa7a93c9da1f7d0d43","node_id":59,"post_date":1582569832,"thread_id":3684,"user_id":8},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3684#post-25567"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Factomize has lowered its efficiency to 0%
[I]Please be sure to read post 3 first. I want to make sure we do not get into a potential mood discussion if you are really using multiple factors, but only mentioned efficiency in the vote itself[/I]

[QUOTE="Valentin Ganev, post: 25555, member: 114"]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Of course everybody is in their right. Until you get into the situation where every ANO has their own principle point, or for instance people start upping their standing cut off percentages.

Having effective vetos on standing on a single issue without having them disclosed first and especially efficiency which is anchored in our governance is obviously allowed, but also takes away some of the self sovereignty of an ANO IMO.
I already see ANOs coming up with the rule that they will remove standing for any ANO removing standing based on thresholds, without looking at a bigger picture.

As much as I want to see the grantpool being funded more and as much as you obviously are in your right to do this, I also ask to weigh this on a case by case basis and if you feel that a certain percentage should be allocated to the grantpool, why not propose a change in governance?

If you look at the spirit of our governance it has always been the idea to divide standing based on several factors. The definition of standing itself includes reputation. What we are doing here is ascertaining whether there is enough value for money for every ANO here. By not looking at other circumstances you are effectively saying No here IMO, whilst I believe if we totally discarded efficiency and if the standing would not have been binary Factomize would be no 1 by a really big margin compared to all the rest. Now they will probably end up somewhere in the middle, because people weigh something they find important (and again it is), as something that removes your support for an ANO altogether.

Don't get me wrong we can disagree on this and we will probably. Nothing I can do to change it. But IMO the single question here should be:

Would we have gotten better value for money with Factomize at 0% or now at 40% because you had a limit of 10% and Tor had one of 35%, resulting in Factomize ending up somewhere in the middle? Working with people is not something short term, so David not risking loosing more standing over it I can certainly see.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top