It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
4/5 July 2018
User Nero again expressed his concern for an optional constitution and vote-buying. User Roland replied that vote-buying is inevitable, but not a problem on the long term. By that time most token holders are businesses, who are running dApps on the network. The paltry bribes from BP’s are not sufficient to justify voting in the wrong people, which will jeopardize their business. There is a discussion going on at reddit about this topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/eos/comments/8w09eq/eos_community_we_need_to_talk/
Eyal Hertzog has proposed a solution for the EOS RAM allocation. Hertzog actually raised a similar proposal in the BP conf, however Dan explained that raising the RAM is not a BP affair but also affects nodes and developers and adds costs to all of them. This is why Hertzog suggests continuously burning EOS tokens in the Bancor contract, which benefits all EOS holders. It is essentially "rent", as the holders of RAM reserve that shared resource for themselves. By burning the tokens, the rent is practically "paid" to all EOS holders. Speculators on the "future RAM" concept that was suggested in the document are not reserving any existing resources therefore they don't pay any rent. It’s not renting, it’s just removing liquidity from the market over time. The proposal can be read here:
User Dylan mentioned that the current interim constitution is riddled with glaring flaws, contradictory articles, possible loopholes, subjectively undefined key terms and dangerously misleading legal language. It is unclear who/what a "member" is and the process of voluntary consenting to the constitution itself is questionable. User Aneta replied that probably the main problem is that nobody knew about this constitution until after the mainnet launch and many people didn’t opted in voluntarily. As a result the community is not homogeneous and quite divided, but things seem to be setting down and the new proposal seems to gain continuously more support. After it will be accepted, people will be able to join dApps with whatever constitution they have to offer. Dylan has written down his poposal on EOS Go: https://forums.eosgo.io/discussion/1571/clarification-is-never-a-bad-thing-constitutional-additions/p1?new=1
User Anna posted a screenshot in which Daniel Keyes shares his vision on how he thought the submission process for a referendum is constructed. This as a reaction to yesterday’s referendum submission proposal by Steve Floyd. One of Keyes impressions for a minimum viable product is that the EMLG acts as a governing body until we’re able to elect an independent body through referendum. Josh Kauffman replied by saying that the EMLG doesn’t exist anymore and in his statement he clears up some other misconceptions about the EMLG. We have launched now, so the EOS Mainnet Launch Group is no longer needed.
Steve Floyd commented that it was said in the discussions that there may only be one designated EOS account that can submit or approve proposals to be voted on for referendum and that account would be under the control of the EMLG. The community must hold them to those words when this rolls out, as suddenly it all seems completely wrong. There is no EMLG group and any active or standby BP account collecting inflation (min 0.5%) can submit a proposal.
Daniel Keyes responded by saying that their goal is to get a “good enough” referendum mechanism to market as soon as possible. A method is required to prevent spam proposals from overwhelming voters and creating voter apathy. Block producers are currently the only elected body in the EOS ecosystem. For lack of a better term, EMLG is what has been used in the discussion to refer to that elected body of block producers. Once the referendum process is stood up, there is a mechanism in place to elect an independent body to manage the referendum process. The goal is to remove block producers from the proposal process shortly. Keyes is also discussing a more decentralized solution to prevent spam that would require staking tokens to put forward referendum proposals. User Ramsey replied that he doesn’t understand why we’re so worried about spam. Ramsey is hugely opposed to any gatekeepers to referendum proposals. Floyd commented that he supports a staking fee to filter spam, but he thinks letting anyone submit is a good idea. User Aneta added that the fee in itself should prevent the creation of too many identical proposals.