Post #30448

89e07985ced1dd1773a4830e98fdc53a0bcc66ff98405e890865ab4eb803a0df
7f7de2fdffb38ddeecc655d07fa8ee13d7f4c212ca08c978eeac4e70b39ffb34
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

The signature from the blockchain entry has been verified against an identity on this server.

{"entry_date":1603831294,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"05b93de71b663ff9a8e86cfe03695c33291542c32e097d0de1de6cef397319fe14e0f0082fa53833dbc6572a9d03c3646f09935345cd25840cb5c711bed361e2","node_id":52,"post_date":1603831294,"thread_id":5539,"user_id":29},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/grant-round-2020-4-final-amount-v2-vote.5539\/post-30448"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Grant Round 2020.4 Final Amount V2 vote
[QUOTE="Niels Klomp, post: 30447, member: 8"]
[USER=29]@PaulSnow[/USER] That all deviates from what we have in governance. Can we please just keep this simple and go with the 170K. I think everyone in here has better things to discuss than the 1% or 3%.

As soon as the vote is open, I hope everyone is okay with voting for 170K FCT for this round as proposed by [USER=48]@Nolan Bauer[/USER] .
[/QUOTE]
That's fine. I thought I was defending the initial estimate, but meh.

Mitigation is still possibly necessary, so it seems helpful to me to list what we might do.

I'm not sure if governance prohibits a response to a failure to accurately predict available tokens, but I'll take your word for it if it does.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top