It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This is currently the only proposal which I am aware of, to address the dilemma of voluntary consent on EOS or rather the lack of verifiable voluntary consent on EOS.
Many of the most vocal participants involved in governance discussions seem to be under the impression that EOS is already voluntary. While it may be somewhat voluntary compared to modern violent governments, many of us freedom minded EOS believers are dissatisfied with how the current EOS governance system extracts “voluntary” consent. You may think that the methods of consent on EOS are not problematic. You may think EOS is fine as is and does not need updates, or you may be overly focused on improving upon a different problem area. That is just fine, but do realize some of us see the desperate need for consent coin or something like it. If improvements are not made to the governance system we could see many current EOS supporters and users shift to a forked chain with better voluntary governance principles and practices.
As it stands now, consent is implicitly implied and this has led to many users remaining wholly unaware that they have actually consented to anything. This is not so much voluntary consent as it is duplicitously coercing users into consenting to an un-ratified constitution and/or Ricardian contract buried in the code somewhere. This has left us lacking a method to verify if users have knowingly consented. It further fails to provide any means of revoking consent, even in the event of constitutional changes. So using EOS today requires users to indefinitely consent, placing users in the precarious position of being held subject to any and all future constitutional additions and revisions, regardless of how those amendments could impact users. I have not heard anyone question weather EOS should be voluntarily/consensual or not. The real question is threefold.
“How should EOS establish voluntary consent?”
“How will that consent be verified?”
“How will EOS manage fraudulently elicited consent?”
It is dangerously audacious, and dare I say lazy; to merely assume everyone using EOS has automatically consented. Is that the best means of voluntary consent EOS can offer? To answer these questions, I give you Consent Coin.
Consent coin is more or less an improvement on an existing feature of EOS, which will allow the best of both worlds approach towards voluntary consent. I can already hear someone now saying, this is not necessary, a waste of resources, and too complicated. Someone might also say this could provide means for bad actors to avoid arbitration or other potential arbitration exploits. To that end I need only remember EOS was not designed to be perfect but rather readily amendable when faced with these kinds of issues, so with a little effort and cooperation we can “make EOS voluntary again”
Consent coin will represent constitutional consent. Accounts holding consent coin will be recognized as having consented to the constitution. Each account cannot hold more than 1 consent coin and they cannot be transferred between accounts. They can only be transferred to and from the main consent coin contract. They can be claimed for any account only after a user checks a box confirming the intentions of constitutional consent. Initially, claiming your consent coin would be free using your own RAM yet cost a small fee to use the RAM in consent coin contract. As this project is for the betterment of EOS as a whole, when the WP is up and running I will propose funds be used to ensure consent coin is free for whoever wants it.
Accounts not holding consent coin will not be bound by the constitution or required to abide by the articles within. Those accounts can still be brought to arbitration for violations related to contracts with other accounts if they have chosen to enter into any such contract. To maintain good faith with the constitutional intent, consent coin will be required for actions that could be abused by bad actors. The process of working out which actions need to be restricted is in progress but unless someone smarter than me finds a way of cleanly incorporating the proper restrictions and relevant privileges, an update to the eos.io code will almost certainly be required. If required or desired by the community as a whole, the restrictions on accounts not holding consent coins could go so far as to effectively turn EOS into a faster Bitcoin.
To revoke constitutional consent users can send consent coin back to the consent coin contract. Revoking consent might be limited to a set period of time directly after a new constitutional amendment is up for referendum and/or has passed into effect. Adding consent coin to an account can be executed anytime and as quickly as the system will allow but sending consent coin back out of the account, to revoke consent, will require a cool down period before actually revoking consent. During this period it will be publicly shown that consent is in the process of being revoked but effectively the user will be considered as consenting for all constitutional purposes. Transactions occurring while holding consent coin will be treated as such regardless of current consensual status. Thus bad actors can be held responsible to the same degree as if we merely kept assuming voluntary consent across the board, yet here we have verifiable evidence of their voluntary consent for arbitration purposes.
Consent coin will be publicly visible and block explorers should show the consent status of users. DAPPS could require users to have consent coin before using their services and it could be automated so as to require users to keep consent coin to continue using their services. Wallets should warn a user before transacting with a non-consenting account. Account creation programs could include an option to automatically add consent coin upon a new creation. Airdrops could take the presence or absence of users consent coin into consideration when determining who gets what.
It would have been much easier to implement had consent coin been incorporated in eos.io code and it will take much community support it achieve any level of adoption but together we can make EOS voluntary again!
At first, consent coin will serve no function as far as users are concerned and the focus should be on spreading the word and promoting community awareness. Proving voluntary consent requires a voluntary action thus an airdrop would defeat the purpose and users will need to actually claim consent coin. Hopefully, after levels of adaptation have reached critical mass, all the necessary code will be written and audited so we can activate the updated code and make EOS voluntary again. I do realize it was never truly voluntary, at least to the degree in which consent coin will allow. so perhaps that is a reference to when EOS was still an ETH token. Sure, it was much less functional then but as far as governance is concerned, much more voluntary. Fun Fact: Anarchy > Oppression
My opinions regarding vote buying have been made clear elsewhere but if the community really desires an unenforceable ban on vote buying, we could just update the code to require users to have consent coin before voting. From a technical perspective, It might be desirable for even accounts not holding consent coin to be “potentially” auctioned off after 3 years of inactivity even though they never consented to article 15. This is one article that is highly deprived of community support and I hope we find a way around this, but consent coin does not solve this issue. Consent is not really required to fulfill a true necessity anyways.
In regards to article one, code cannot be violent but code of value can be exchanged for violent purposes, so this is what really needs to be mitigated. The non-aggression principle is a notable pillar of Natural Law. So preventing aggressive violent behavior by blacklisting accounts tied to violence does not require consent. Further, we can encourage those prone to violence to use Monero instead by seizing EOS account funds if and when reliably linked to the promotion of violence and under natural law, we don’t really need consent to do this either.
While this next idea remains less solidified in my head, for maximum user flexibility we could have a separate consent coin for each article of the constitution. Transactions relevant to a given article would be restricted to users holding the corresponding consent coin. This might seem to complicate things but if embraced by the community and effectively automated, the process could be made very user-friendly. Many parts of the constitution are not relevant for many transactions on EOS. If someone does not consent to the vote-buying rule, they should be able to consent to the other articles and simply remain unable to vote. This is intended to allow even those with drastically different philosophies, goals, and backgrounds greater usability and flexibility on a single chain. The main purpose of consent coin remains, establishing a system of verifiable voluntary consent for all EOS users.
I do not expect to earn any profit from consent coin, I offer my ideas freely and I encourage others to do the same. Consent coin will require massive community support and unprecedented levels of cooperation for effective adaption. At present conceptual stage, consent coin fails to ensure users are of sound mind and have the mental fortitude required for proper voluntary consent. But I think this is possible to incorporate, at least to a degree. The more difficult issue to address is verifying users are not consenting under undue pressure from outside forces. I am not sure what is feasible here but, as always, I encourage ideas, suggestions, and criticisms. Nothings perfect but as is stands, consent coin should greatly improve the mechanics of voluntary consent on EOS.
Together we can “Make EOS voluntary again!”