Clarification is never a bad thing. constitutional additions

I would like to see the following added to Dan new and improved proposed constitution.

This constitution is predominantly written in proper English with various additional (EOS Blockchain) terms, each defined in the constitutional gloss. The definition of terms in the gloss shall supersede all other potential definitions for the purpose of interpretation. Legalese, (the language of lawyers and judges) shall not be used to interpret any part of this constitution. Translations of this constitution may prove helpful as supplementary tools for non-native English speakers, however, this English version is the only version to which members ultimately consent to honor and uphold.

This is not a Legal contract
This constitution is a lawful mutual agreement between sovereigns and shall not be interpreted so as to apply the bondage of legal systems.

Constitutional Consent
This constitution shall be considered binding upon all members, independent of individual awareness, knowledge or comprehension of this constitution. When a non-member voluntarily interacts, in any way, with the EOS Blockchain for the first time, they are consenting to this constitution and thus considered members. Each subsequent interaction on EOS is a reaffirmation of consent. As this constitution may evolve via the amending process detailed within, members are strongly encouraged to maintain a thoroughgoing comprehension of this document, however, constitutional consent is not contingent on a members comprehension thus ignorance of this constitution does not nullify its effects

Termination of constitutional consent
A member may decide to revoke constitutional consent at any time by discontinuing all interactions on EOS.
(can we find a better way to fulfill this function?)


Constitutional Gloss (incomplete)

Developer- Each Member who makes available a smart contract on this blockchain.

Service provider- member or nonmember who produces tools to facilitate the construction and signing of transactions on behalf of other Members

Party/parties-anyone who has signed this contract.

Block Producers- members elected by EOS holders to provide the utility of EOS and compensated by a portion of the allocated inflation

Fiduciary responsibility-An obligation of one party to act in the best interest of another. The obligated party is typically a fiduciary, that is, someone entrusted with the care of money or property. Also called fiduciary obligation.

Legal- manmade, unnatural, arbitrary code of moral conduct and general bondage.

Lawful- in accordance with natural law. Ie Behaving with integrity and honesty, not initiating violence and not harming others

Ricardian Contract- a verifiable record in plain English which establishes the intention of any given code


  • any ideas on how we can allow EOS parties to revoke consent without simply telling them to stop using EOS? or is this unnecessary? should we assume contractual consent to the constitution is infinite without any means of opting out?

    what if they pass an article that says some crazy shit, like "all EOS users must submit to drug test twice a week or have their tokens taken?" Have I now automatically consented to that change in the constitution or am I given a chance to sell my EOS and get out?

  • eosDAC solved these problems by having registered and unregistered accounts. "Members" only become members when they call the memberreg which includes agreeing to our constitution (making it a real contract, voluntarily consented to). They can also unregister. I'd like it if EOS had had a similar process of some kind, though i'm not sure if it's possible since most of the activity people may want to update would be a malfunctioning contract controlled by a hacker who wants to transfer other people's property.

  • @lukestokes said:

    "i'm not sure if it's possible since most of the activity people may want to update would be a malfunctioning contract controlled by a hacker who wants to transfer other people's property."

    Could you elaborate/clarify as to what your concern is? It seems like a great idea and would love to see something like that on EOS. Updating code to fix a flaw is one thing, and it would be cool to be able to opt out of certain updates. My bigger concern regards changes to the constitution occurring and not having a way to terminate prior consent. I imagine some kind of opt-out feature which puts the account into a "nonconsenting, limited functionality mode" with design intentions of being able to liquidate or donate funds and revoke consent. Perhaps this would only be an option available for a week after a constitutional update and only before any other actions reaffirming consent are taken. Lastly, I would think it to be important to allow non-consenting EOS holders in this non-consenting mode to still be able to vote, so as to have a voice in fixing it, at least from their perspective. I believe the ban of vote buying will not be successful for reasons outlined elsewhere but If the community can't live without such a ban, this nonconsenting voting power could still be contingent upon voluntary consent to that one individual contract of "no vote buying".

  • My understanding is Article XIII - Informed Consent basically says anyone using the blockchain right now has agreed to the constitution. From that position, if they don't agree with an upcoming constitutional change, then they could sell their tokens before the change.

Sign In or Register to comment.