Post #3784

899731754e27fc7ba1c4b7e5a037d45c74b4a2b14ad56ae8eb4daa29a34faa4b
ca0ced53e5186608360675e9d42aa5f865ecd4ea7ce53b768d30ec94298f1575
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":1534681412,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"f84a57c1ba9646eb05051949979a4e0a26e808a1f64268d1606985bef6916b5dcb5ecccfa928ac68574c23496d678af62923761b3640c2f6f0a9c5a825b87a12","node_id":32,"post_date":1534681317,"thread_id":568,"user_id":48},"post_link":"http:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/568#post-3784"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Veteran Blockchain Investment Firm
[USER=27]@briandeery[/USER],

[I]BD02) I am uncomfortable with your self selecting of grant priorities, especially by setting your efficiency all the way to 0%. While WVU is respectable, this feels like a tradeoff of neglecting near term protocol problems affecting the community today for distant potential ambiguous benefits.[/I]

I’m not sure what ambiguous benefits you are highlighting? I think any advancement of the protocol in terms of both visibility and usage as well as further decentralization of the core development is beneficial to the protocol as a whole and all ANOs. In addition to the other ANOs, we would hope Factom Inc. would be one of the first to welcome a major announcement like the partnering of the Factom protocol (through which Factom Inc gets visibility) with a university to further the research and adoption of blockchain technology; all accomplished under the Factom banner, not Veteran. We had actually hoped, if successful, that we could get Factom Inc to participate in the prioritization to help alleviate some of the development workload.

On the subject of self-selecting of grant priorities, nowhere did we mention altering our efficiency to 0%. Where are you seeing this? The lowest our overall efficiency between two nodes (if you assume the WVU endowment is completely worthless) would be 25% (50% to Veteran address, 25% to grant pool, 25% to a worthless WVU address). We stated above we will not be altering our efficiency without first discussing it with the other ANOs and the community. This is also assuming the FCT price facilitates the funding of the endowment. If it is not worth it, we will not pursue what has been described as a “distant potential ambiguous benefit” and 50% of our overall reimbursement for running the nodes will continue being given to the grant pool to fund immediate Factom protocol needs. In addition; it is our view that working on behalf of the protocol and Factom Inc. at our own expense to further the protocol for the last seven months should prove to you and everyone how committed we are. So; let us be clear about this and put the ambiguity to bed once and for all. Our efficiency is set at 50%. We are currently working on behalf of the protocol at our own expense, time and resources. We are actively meeting with executives from multiple agencies within the USG at our own expense and to everyone in this communities benefit. For those that are keeping score; that would be described as privatizing losses and socializing gains. As we are drafting this response, we are 16 hours into synching a Mainnet GovCloud node. Once completed, it will be a major step forward in providing a vector for USG entities to do business with the Factom protocol. We have been and continue to be serving and giving to the protocol without receiving anything; and to be questioned about our self-selection of grant priorities leaves our entire executive team uncomfortable and misunderstood.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top