Post #31288

39c531bd8491d39f5855c3a69f6339f1d622fbe1771879cdf7e3f6c0249463e8
768d7220219bf55cc59e4f3340fe24bf8051d437d89ec8b3efc7110e75f0b8b5
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1610560413,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"bcbdd969a3f8e289cdcb8de947618bf86131bdc1712fa9906d69955c3f554db45b138f3b90d746b22dab39b91c9d330eac450a98bc0604d600414bd09abbf7c1","node_id":52,"post_date":1610560413,"thread_id":5633,"user_id":9},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/proposed-factom-roadmap-for-2021.5633\/post-31288"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Proposed Factom Objectives
Over the past three 3-4 years, we've had some challenges with "statements" made by ANO(s) about deliverables, customers, usage, sharding, etc. Some of these statements were true at the time they were spoken. Others were nothing more than wild exaggerations, to put it nicely. Because of this, people lost a ton of faith and trust in Factom. I think we'd all agree that we would like to avoid a repeat of this. This document, if presented as a "roadmap," goes in the "wild exaggeration" category. However, to an outsider, they won't know that this roadmap is not attainable.

Therefore, by calling this document a "roadmap" and presenting it to the public as such, we'd be intentionally deceiving people.

I am not comfortable with that and want no part of it. I think this scenario was simply overlooked and I hope people reconsider the broader ramifications of presenting this as a roadmap. We have a lot of problems, but at least we still have our integrity intact. Let's keep it that way.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top