It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
User Martin says that he likes user Marcin’s compromise of opt-in base layer ARB that he proposed a while back. He furthermore states that if we lose sight of this being voluntary then we have lost the point. User Sun Tzu replies as follows: “Certain things are voluntary. Certain things are not. EOS C is not voluntary - except at the level of "use another chain." EOS source code is not voluntary - except at the level of "fork off." Interacting the BPs in mainnet is not voluntary - if you want your EOS you have to interact and funnily enough, they only accept properly formed packets according to rules you did not set.”
User Samupaha does not find it a good idea to let users vote for arbitrators, because then the big whales can vote for arbitrators that will be friendly for them. That could too easily become corrupted. ECAF needs to be independent in order to resist corruption. User Tanish says agrees. Why are we even discussing voting for arbiters? If I have to choose between centralized arbitration forums and arbiters voted by stakeholders, I will choose the former. Voting for arbiter with time will become corrupt. User Douglas Horn from Telos says that the statement of Tanish seems ridiculous. If anything, voting for arbitrators will do the opposite.
User Aneta says that this governance channel is just a little part of the community and not representative of the entire community. We should stop thinking we know what’s best for the token holders. The current state in which EOS resides is too early to have this kind of constitution into place. The community wasn’t ready for it and until there’s no evident wish for changing things it should not be adopted. User Todor replies that we all want governance on the core level. However, the question is how much governance do we want at the base layer. Todor continues and explains that he used to argue for limited governance on the base layer to have something stable and ensure that participants have good confidence in the system operation. However, with time user Todor got convinced that this is not good enough. If you look at what's happening to Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc., you will see the problems created by the power vacuum from the lack of official governance. When there is no authority to decide on issues, people take authority into their own hands through various covert tactics - media wars, mostly. Media wars don't disappear when things are official, but more importantly, we will have accountability.
User Todor finishes his argument by saying: “You could say that this is just the same old government system that we want to fix/replace. But not everything about this system is bad. There are bad parts - lack of transparency and accountability, parasitism, and so on. But there are good parts as well - efficiency, common vision, actually getting things done... Let's take the good parts and leave the bad parts out, why don't we? This decentralization mantra... it gets so annoying at times. Can we just ask ourselves what we want from decentralization and work towards that instead of turning the whole concept into religion?”
User Sun Tzu agrees with the statement of Todor. User Samupaha replies to this statement by saying that it is important to note that we have explicit and formalized governance. Not ad hoc or shadow governance. All decisions that are made should be made with clearly defined processes. If we have a formalized governance with transparency that blockchain provides, things should go pretty well.
The channel spends a couple of hours debating on Telos. User Truth Seeker is of the opinion that Douglas Horn from Telos has no place in the EOS Governance channel. User Jem responds as follows: “I am confused. Are you saying that if one is involved with another c chain based on the eosio software, that person is unwelcome on the EOS Mainnet? I admit that I am completely baffled by the hostility I sometimes see towards alternative projects.” A lot of users continue to debate on whether or not Telos solves any issues that the EOS Mainnet is currently facing.
用户马丁说，他喜欢用户Marcin在一段时间内提出的选择基础层ARB的妥协。他进一步指出，如果我们忽视这是自愿的，那么我们就失去了这一点。用户Sun Tzu回复如下：“某些事情是自愿的。某些事情不是。 EOS C不是自愿的 - 除了“使用另一条链”之外。 EOS源代码不是自愿的 - 除了“分叉”级别。在主网中交互BP并不是自愿的 - 如果你想要你的EOS，你必须进行足够的互动，他们只能根据你没有设置的规则接受正确形成的数据包。
用户Samupaha认为让用户投票给仲裁员并不是一个好主意，因为这样大佬们可以投票给那些对他们友好的仲裁员。这很容易导致腐败。 ECAF需要独立才能抵制腐败。用户Tanish表示赞同。为什么我们要讨论为仲裁者投票这个问题？如果我必须在集中仲裁论坛和利益相关者投票的仲裁者之间做出选择，我将选择前者。随着时间的推移对仲裁者进行投票将变得腐败。来自Telos的用户Douglas Horn表示Tanish的陈述似乎很荒谬。如果这样的话，投票给仲裁员会有相反的作用。
用户Aneta说，这个治理渠道只是社区的一小部分，并不代表整个社区。我们不应该想当然的认为我们知道对于代币持有者来说什么是最好的。 EOS所处的现状还为时尚早，无法制定这种宪法。社区还没有做好准备，直到没有明显企图要在继续改变这都不应该被采纳。用户Todor回复说我们都希望在核心层面进行治理。但问题是我们在基层需要多少治理。 Todor继续并解释说他曾经争论基层的有限治理，以确保稳定并确保参与者对系统操作有信心。然而，随着时间的推移，用户Todor确信这不够好。如果你看看比特币，以太坊等发生了什么，你会看到由于缺乏官方治理而产生的权力真空造成的问题。当没有权力决定问题时，人们通过各种转换策略 - 大多数是媒体战争 - 将权力掌握在自己手中。即使事情是正式的，媒体战争不会消失，但更重要的是我们为此负责责任。
用户Todor完成他的论点时说：“你可以说这只是我们想要修复/替换的旧政府系统。但并非关于这个系统的一切都很糟糕。有不好的部分 - 缺乏透明度和问责制，寄生病等等。但是也有很好的部分 - 效率，共同的愿景，实际上已经完成了事情......让我们把好的部分留下，把坏的部分拿走，何尝不好？这种权力分散制的圣歌...有时候会变得很烦人。我们可以问问自己，我们想要从权力分散制中得到什么? 并努力实现这一目标，而不是将整个概念转变为一种宗教。
该频道花了几个小时就Telos进行辩论。用户真相寻求者认为来自Telos的Douglas Horn在EOS治理渠道中没有发言权。用户jem响应如下：“我很困惑。你是说如果一个人参与了基于eosio软件的另一个c链，那么这个人在EOS主网上是不受欢迎的？我承认，我对替代项目的敌意有时感到非常困惑。“许多用户继续争论Telos是否解决了EOS 主网目前面临的任何问题。