Post #25570
-
-
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":1582570671,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"499258e86e54bf2543662ed2e04f574ea11e8afadf9a049223b9c4594d3a5f0836a1f2ce3f6790f168ec82440bdec832aca0cc416ef8962c2d506088aa9f5bb5","node_id":59,"post_date":1582570476,"thread_id":3684,"user_id":8},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3684#post-25570"}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="Matthias Fortin, post: 25563, member: 227"]
I really do not see the issue here. It is the diversity of the point of views which determinates the final standing score.
And honestly, at some point everything is arbitrary. Even a score grid is as Factomize or HashnStore did.
Moreover in your case, even by decreasing to 0% efficiency, I suspect you are likely to keep one of the highest standing score, at least for some time.
[/QUOTE]
I am pretty sure they don't. I am also very very worried for negative feedback loops as soon as parties start giving 100% weight against something that is part of our current governance (efficiency is self determined by ANOs). Without looking at circumstances and enforcing minimum efficiencies on others and making that the deal breaker, I think one could even make an argument you are not following governance. Would be interesting to have our LRWG look into that.This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.