Someone asked me in a private message if I have compared my planned (currently vaporware) design to Factom.

There are some key distinctions between my design and Factom's:

• Since Factom uses the Bitcoin block chain, it doesn't defeat selfish mining employing my math derivation.
• Since Factom uses the Bitcoin block chain, it doesn't fix mining so that proof-of-work is unprofitable for ASICs and thus only the users mine.
• Since Factom uses the Bitcoin block chain, it doesn't eliminate the 51% attack.
• Factom conflates the requirement to use their tokens (factoids) in order to use their consensus network, thus network is not orthogonal to user's preferred asset class.
• Factom transactions don't become irreversible for 10 minutes, whereas my design is on the order of a second or seconds to become irreversible.
• Factom's consensus network is a fixed number of federated servers, and not an open, unbounded entropy permission-less network. I will not explain why at this time; this limitation in Factom is derives from the fact that Factom doesn't mine its own block chain.
• Whereas afaik Ethereum's unresolved technical problem has been it forces all the nodes to verify each script (or did they ever stop thrashing their research and settle on a delegation algorithm?), contract, or transaction, Factom consensus does not verify at all (relegates to clients to interpret but afaics clients can't inhibit further downstream graph entanglement), thus a tangled mayhem! I believe my design resolves this major, major issue.
• I do not see any mention of network partitioning tolerance for Factom.

There may be other differences and I will need to spend more time analyzing to be sure I have enumerated every difference.

P.S. still planning to evaluate eMunie.