Post #31291

Signature verified

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

The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Proposed Factom Objectives
[QUOTE="Niels Klomp, post: 31287, member: 8"]
If we treat this as a simple Wishlist that is very much open to changes no matter what approach we are going down I am okay with it.

I imagine it would be. Whether that's through leadership or just the natural evolution of a roadmap as a living document.

[QUOTE="Matt Osborne, post: 31288, member: 9"]
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.

We also have dozens of unfinished grants and ANOs at very low efficiencies doing god knows what. But hey, at least we still have our integrity. I get that it's a lot of fun to be negative, and for sure I've been vocal about unfocused work and grants just for the sake of grants, but from what I'm able to see there are only a few parties with completed, dedicated projects on Factom. That includes [USER=29]@PaulSnow[/USER] [USER=35]@Anton Ilzheev[/USER] and [USER=10]@Paul B.[/USER]

We will need a reasonable way to continue engaging the people who've actually tried to do something (and attract new parties!), and do so in a way that is fundable, measurable and achievable. It starts with a list of items to let them work on, which is ultimately what all roadmaps are, and if that evolves into something radically more efficient through leadership and quick, results-based funding, then all the better.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.