It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
3/4 July 2018
Steve Floyd shared his thoughts on the first steps of EOS. Over the last few weeks many issues have become apparent with the constitution, vote distribution, the worker proposal system and the referendum contract that needed to fix all these problems. According to Floyd we are not focussing enough on educating and activating the token holders, which are the users of the EOS network. If we expect to change the things we don’t like about the system, we have to help making things a lot simpler than we have been before. It should start with a user-centered approach to EOS-voting. The article Floyd has written about it can be read here: https://steemit.com/eos/@eostribe/bringing-it-all-together-a-user-centered-approach-to-eos-voting
Floyd has also submitted an outline of what has been discussed in the group working on the referendum contract: https://forums.eosgo.io/discussion/1561/proposed-referendum-contract-process/p1
User Nick is confused about Dans recent proposal to the EOS constitution & ecosystem. In an attempt to strongly counter the perceived 'arbitrary' power of ECAF and the difficulty to verify their claims, Dan proposed to fundamentally alter the governance structure and remove the constitution as a community-binding element. As Thomas Cox has stated in the recent EOSgo Episode, Nick too perceived this move as being somewhat reactive and not thought through. By making it optional to abide to the constitution, we break an important part in the game-theoretical underpinning of EOS. An optional constitution means optional vote-buying, optional exchanges voting with their users tokens, and a myriad of other problems. As there are no means to enforce the constitution universally, Dan’s latest proposal does not even include an article to prevent vote-buying. Vote-buying turns dPOS into POS. Making the constitution optional will change the fundamentals of gov and a fundamental change to the gov system will result in a competitive fork.
Syed Jafri replied by saying that we currently have a constitution that is constantly unenforced due to its subjective nature. That undermines the constitution’s validity. The new constitution aims to only keep aspects that can be consistently enforced without subjectivity, to establish the validity of the base constitution. In the face of subjectivity, you must set precedent. To set precedent in a decentralized fashion is difficult.
User Todor added that perhaps it would've been easier to enforce the current constitution with an elected ECAF with well defined processes. But the reality is that we don't have that. There are two possible ways to go, work towards improving ECAF or change the constitution. It's a subjective thing and subjective things are really hard to resolve in a decentralized environment. Therefore Todor thinks a fork is more likely. A changed constitution is also more likely to be accepted by the rest of the cryptocommunity. Personally he would've given it more time, but doesn't see much progress on improving processes either. That's the problem with decentralization. Everything happens slowly and it's really hard to reach consensus on controversial decisions.
User Aneta believes that what we fear most now is vote-buying and unfair voting, resulting in BP’s creating multiple accounts or cartels. To mitigate this behavior, the goal of BP’s should be to reach to as many token holders as possible. This will keep token holders informed and engaged in voting. Some BP’s showed that they’re capable of building good tools and dApps and Aneta thinks this is what gained them votes. The continuation on this path, as well as good marketing operations, should be enough to ensure voter awareness and the health of the network. Aneta also lately saw many Chinese people coming to the EOS groups to complain about Chinese BP’s buying votes and acting as unfairly. She proposed to leave the fact if it’s true or not. Seeing them complaining about these things and calling for a reaction made her think that the Chinese community isn’t succumbed to them after all. Therefore she sees the future of EOS in a brighter light.