Governance unit tests

We are looking to test our constitution articles, and spur debate, which could take the form of a video debate.
Here is a link to the current constitution:

In the replies to this thread please post your suggestion for a unit test:

Each unit test will need the following information:

  1. Highlight one specific article to be tested.

  2. Determine the main 2 or 3 specific arguments which may be debated. This can include specific wording of the article(s) or fundamental stances. Must include in a real life use case that tests the Amendment.

  3. Test the arguments above by showing what each argument is expected to yield, in the form of real expected outcomes.

Video debates should be public for all to see and the outcome is that consensus on the resolution should be clear and supported by the community.

Example by Jose Toriello (EOS Meso):
If article Y states Z, then O will be the outcome.

Therefore, a better wording would be article Y stating W, because O+ would be outcome.

Then we can agree or disagree with the validity of O and O+ as probable outcomes or find out why they might not be true.

Learning from the Munk Debates (, here is a proposed idea for format:

1) We can propose a statement, ie: Be it resolved, Article XV is ....

2) Take a pre-poll on the Pro and Con side of the statement in 1)

3) Have 2-3 debaters, for each the PRO and CON sides of the argument, debate on record for all to see.

4) Take an exit poll


  • edited June 2018

    Thank you for posting guys. May I suggest that you include in "2." a real life use case that tests the Amendment.

    In fact, I think articulating the real-life use cases which correspond to different amendments is the most important part.

    Also, maybe include a link to the main-net Constitution:

  • @RomanCryptoLions said:
    Thank you for posting guys. May I suggest that you include in "2." a real life use case that tests the Amendment.

    In fact, I think articulating the real-life use cases which correspond to different amendments is the most important part.

    Also, maybe include a link to the main-net Constitution:


  • In article 1 if someone violates there is no defined penalty, therefore there would be confusion if the BP is banned, penalized, or just fined.

    Therefore article 1 should state there is a permanent ban of the offending BP and a ban of any BP teams which associate with the offender in the future.

  • I'm a bit confused by this.

    Isn't a constitution a mechanism of government? I understand that Block Producers are responsible for maintaining the blockchain on behalf of the wider community but I don't believe it means you can enforce rules upon it. Or am I missing something? I don't think 'governance' is meant in a literal sense.

    Being a decentralized blockchain means that it MUST evolve naturally without rules of law and block producers have a responsibility to ensure this is possible at all times. (Only getting involved when there is a consensus.)

    Out of curiosity, I did read through your constitution and to me, it seems incredibly oppressive, especially for a decentralized blockchain. The sections that caught my eye...

    Article VII - Open Source
    Each Member who makes available a smart contract on this blockchain shall be a Developer. Each Developer shall offer their smart contracts via a free and open source license, and each smart contract shall be documented with a Ricardian Contract stating the intent of all parties and naming the Arbitration Forum that will resolve disputes arising from that contract

    This is not in the spirit of decentralization at all. In fact, it's not even in the spirit of the internet as a whole where anyone can use it as they wish. This must be the case for EOS otherwise it will seriously hinder it's growth and effectively give away developers to competing blockchains. I know it's scary to think that anyone can do anything on EOS but this is how freedom works and without this basic freedom, EOS will die before it gets started. I want EOS to achieve its full potential and this will only happen if users are free to use the protocol as they see fit.

    Article VIII - Language
    Multi-lingual contracts must specify one prevailing language in case of dispute and the author of any translation shall be liable for losses due to their false, misleading, or ambiguous attested translations.

    Again, this sounds like EOS is being policed. This can't happen on a decentralized network. How would this even be possible? I want EOS to grow so big it would literally be impossible for anyone to keep track of things like this.

    I really hope I am missing the point of this constitution because it doesn't sound like what I expected EOS to be. In regards to block producers, I understand the word 'governance' to mean optimal node performance, transaction processing etc. Not an enforcement/policing/government of the blockchain.

    Please elaborate on what this is and if I am missing the point, please accept my apologies in advance.

  • HaHa I've jumped here from an external link and assumed the worst. Sorry for my interruption. I see it is a constitution for block producers only now. I should learn to read things before I jump to conclusions. Sorry guys.

  • I suggest that the actual "unit tests" should happen in written form. It's much better way to completely go through the implications that an article has. Everybody should be able to give their input on all articles. Short spoken debates are not optimal because some arguments might be missed.

    We could open a thread for every article for unit testing here on this forum, or maybe even create a sub-forum for them.

    Video debates are better for larger questions, such as "should we include certain principle to the Constitution or not". After the debate an article is written, and then exposed to "unit testing".

  • we hit 15% (voting) from 10% just this moring

  • I would like to take one minute to maybe address the elephant in the room. EOS currently has no legislative body. Are we to make EVERY decision via "community referendum"? Decentralized? sure. Efficient and long-term sustainable? Not by a long shot in my opinion. If we start with the natural premise that decisions for the blockchain must be made (governance details, worker proposal acceptance and allocation, etc.), our next logical questions should be how and by whom? Building off of infrastructure we already have in place (voting portal) I propose a committee of 21 duly elected representatives a cabal of 21 if you will. Using the exact same voting structure as electing BPs the EOS community will also have to power and voice to replace any or all of these 21 if and when they become arrogant, negligent, and/or corrupt. I for one would welcome a blockchain in which I have the power to vote for both the legislative and executive body. On complex issues where a clear and evident answer is not apparent the 21 BPs and 21 committee members could debate and arrive at a majority (2/3rds) consensus. This is intended to spark a discussion on the topic and hopefully, arrive at a reasonable consensus on the topic. I will also be making this post in Steemit and referencing this post. Thank you and go EOS!

  • Article VI - Restitution
    "Each Member agrees that penalties for breach of contract may include, but are not limited to, fines, loss of account, and other restitution.
    what is a breach of contract? Can this please be defined? As it stands now, arbitrators have too much power with out any clear boundaries."

    My thoughts:

    “May include but not limited to” and “other restitution” together, is redundant. We get it, arbitrators have unlimited power. Is this really what we want? I thought EOS was designed to allow for any change if the EOS community was overwhelmingly in favor of it. Why are we giving arbitrators so much power in vagueness before voters have even had a chance to vote on “real” arbitrators?

Sign In or Register to comment.