Post #31274

39c531bd8491d39f5855c3a69f6339f1d622fbe1771879cdf7e3f6c0249463e8
57acf4b39eabd26eead0c0fe5ff39a3e471adbd20b9685741a50033cfe102ea9
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1610496875,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"b107263936be5335244b067a6805660fe36ee47e1ec9b82b6de871c772c03bb4d170c0686f997bdc281ba423271c427cb8bee7a380d5e6cec729b21a4629dfff","node_id":52,"post_date":1610496875,"thread_id":5633,"user_id":9},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/proposed-factom-roadmap-for-2021.5633\/post-31274"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Proposed Factom Objectives
I don't understand why this is being put forward when we have the following occurring:

(1) The Director proposal imminent
(2) The GWG attempting to narrow down the Governance approach the community wants, most likely to introduce another proposal.

The Governance approach the standing parties decide upon could largely dictate the roadmap. Therefore, this proposal is premature and should be pulled.

As such, we'll be voting "No" on this proposal at this point in time.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top