Post #25569

7c9296462aae60af2480f8d9459123fa8234490947f2358d0998fd80d3cd9c90
c0b83b114fbcca71697c1165dc638ea2c2b69aa5cc6316bd59d2aa3f54af2cd7
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":1582570229,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"623ce208861b4eade945540c00477dc7ac1ccd1512d6b50fbdd781f91464944fedb47c60d5635088f2cb412fd09842ee48cd749737f0d4d4daaa3d92858538d9","node_id":59,"post_date":1582570195,"thread_id":3684,"user_id":8},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3684#post-25569"}
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: 25555, member: 114"]
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.
[/QUOTE]
If that is the case it makes more sense. But in the vote you only mentioned the 10%. You literally said you are not supporting ANOs at these levels. If it is part of multiple factors for me it totally makes sense to me.

[QUOTE="Valentin Ganev, post: 25555, member: 114"]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I do. This one stands out because according to the text in the vote itself the efficiency was the only factor. I did ask Tor for instance the same questions.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top