Design Principles of my v0.1 Draft EOS.IO Constitution

thomasbcoxthomasbcox Posts: 148 Sr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

These are the standards, goals and principles behind the draft Articles I'll be posting. Agreement is not required. They're here so the reader can see why I made certain design choices in the drafting. If you have different standards, goals, or principles, please state yours explicitly. That makes it clearer why we may disagree on an article.

For example, if you disagree with the goal of "negative rights" then you would write very different articles. Please be encouraged to share both your alternative articles, AND your disagreement with the specific goal (e.g. "negative rights" or whatever) that underlie the differences.

  1. Negative Rights
  2. Brevity
  3. English Only
  4. Nesting Levels
  5. Life, Liberty and Property
  6. Synergy with Social Norms

1. Negative Rights
I'm attempting to write the entire Draft EOS.IO Constitution v0.1 using the language of Negative Rights exclusively.

A "negative right" for party A is one that other people respect by refraining from specific actions, such as not physically assaulting A.

It's my belief (and that of other members of the Governance team) that negative rights do the best job of simultaneously protect the rights of the person who holds the right, and protecting maximum freedom of action for everybody else. It's also far easier to make negative rights reciprocal.

2. Brevity
My goal is to write a terse document, articulating high level principles, where details and use cases can be worked out by the community over time outside of the Constitution itself. These could take the form of Smart Contract language, Ricardian Contract language, Enclave Agreements, Arbitrator rulings, etc.

3. English Only
Several folks have expressed concern that having two or more equal copies of the Constitution in two or more languages would create chaos, as the translations would inevitably have tiny differences in nuance and meaning. The only way to avoid that is to have a single reference copy in one language. Given the development history of the project, and my own lack of knowledge of any language other than English, I've selected English as the language for the one true Constitution.

4. Nesting Levels
The community has frequently discussed the inevitable, and highly desirable, creation of small communities with their own internal rules of membership and their own mutually recognized rights. Such a setup is known as an "enclave" -- a subset or portion of a larger space, in which the people and rules are distinct and different from their surroundings.

The overall EOSIO Software based mainnet would be the first level. Inside it there could be an Enclave for (say) Gaming, where a special set of Gaming Dapps live, and where people opt in to the Gaming Enclave. Those who opt in, get to access the special Dapps and will be subject to special Gaming Enclave rules. Nested inside the Gaming Enclave there might be a Game Master sub-Enclave with even more special rules, perhaps a one-person, one-vote rule. Disputes would always be resolved within the smallest Enclave that included all the parties of the dispute, and according to the rules of that Enclave, plus any rules inherited from the enclosing Enclaves.

5. Life, Liberty and Property
The domain of the EOSIO Software is largely property. By this I mean, people don't live in a blockchain, and cannot be arrested or imprisoned by one (although they could be arrested and imprisoned by a government, based on that person's actions on a blockchain). It has been the design goal of the EOSIO project to create an ecosystem that can provide DApps and support for applications that protect human life, liberty and property in ways other systems cannot. The Constitution will be geared toward supporting this mission.

6. Synergy with Social Norms
Lawrence Lessig, in the article "The New Chicago School" (published in The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 27, No. S2 (June 1998)) notes that four forces influence human behavior within systems: law, social norms, markets, and architecture (i.e., technical infrastructure or code). The Constitution is intended to be crafted in a way that honors and makes room for all four forces to be used in their ideal way.

If this was helpful, please UPVOTE. If not, please REPLY so I can improve.

Thomas Cox
blockchain governance expert - active in the EOSIO ecosystem
US: +1 503.516.3886

(all opinions are my own)

Comments

  • SunTzuSunTzu Posts: 22 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    1- Complex!
    2,3,6- sure.

    4- Nesting Levels. My concern for this is that it sounds nice to talk about as an idea, and is an all encompassing concept - who would argue against giving a community their special enclave?

    But when it comes to implementation I think the results may prove hard to turn into benefit. Firstly there will be those who want to reverse certain rights, just because, and this will make it hard to know for the customers of those dapps. Secondly we now have a barrier, a border, where before there was none. When a gaming app wants a derivative trade is it in the gaming enclave or the derivative enclave?

    I see this with the Creative Commons project. Much fanfare, but everyone wanted their particular type. And then every country wanted their law. And then we had to do versions... In the end it's just a mess that scares away customers.

    Whereas if they'd just said "this is the concept, this is the licence and there's only one of them" they might have had more success. Trying to please everyone can often end up hurting everyone.

    5- is next.

  • SunTzuSunTzu Posts: 22 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    5- There's several problems with this.

    Firstly, it's a brand of particularly USA and political connotations. That plays well in countries with worse brands and concepts (typically the developing world) and badly in countries with better brands and concepts. It also plays well in countries that have pleasant relations (the West, Asia), but less so in countries with historically fractious history (Middle East, Latin America).

    So part of the problem here is that it is rather hard to divorce the politics from the claim, and that makes it a poor fit for a blockchain community that wants harmony for trade not disharmony on politics.

    Which is what makes this so hard to go against - it is an insult to disagree with the brand of another country. But it's also an insult to foister a politics onto another. Critics won't therefore disagree verbally but they will disrespect in private, unless there is strong substance to this claim. Which brings up the next point.

    As you've laid out above, its applicability is weak. Blockchain is heavy on property, because that's what it is: issuance of assets. But it has little or no or controversial bearing on life and liberty. Also, other concepts such as dignity (German), equality (French) and harmony (China) that are arguably more applicable are left out.

  • drbitsdrbits Posts: 3 Brand New

    Regarding 4. Nesting Levels,

    Do the enclaves supersede mainnet rules? Trying to understand how this would work in practice. I'm picturing these enclave constitution augmentations like a EULA on a website: It adds some rules, but it can't take away any legal rights I already possess.

    People generally don't read EULAs and part of the reason for that is that a EULA has somewhat limited power. It can't say something like, "By signing this, you forfeit all assets to the company."

    Now if the enclave constitution does supersede, suddenly it's EXTREMELY important that I read it because all bets are off. That seems dangerous and user hostile.

  • drbitsdrbits Posts: 3 Brand New

    I agree with SunTzu in regards to 5.

  • TheAwakenmentTheAwakenment Posts: 8 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens
    1. Is my favourite part (& yes, that's how you spell it in English) :smile:
      You can make the protection of life, liberty and property a core ingredient without making it political per se.
      I suppose the problem comes when you try and attempt to arbitrate around something visceral such as this i.e. 'the spirit' of of the project. Then it becomes political.
      We also need to take into account that a large proportion of EOS token holders bought their tokens precisely because they want to see Dan Larimer's vision for the project unfold in this way.
      I'd prefer not to see these club rules too long or too convoluted - especially at the beginning. I think all they need do is represent what we all want to see from the start - A system with a sense of fair play at its heart with a few fail-safes built in. It becomes a minefield of complexity otherwise.
      Is this a rough draft of the constitution? or are we to expect more additions to be added later down the line?
  • MellMell Posts: 1 Brand New

    Yes I agree with Kyle on 5 , I guess the rules of the constitution will change as the platform matures being more inclusive as time goes by with the emphasis on the power of the people's vote (EOS token holders)

  • thomasbcoxthomasbcox Posts: 148 Sr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    Great feedback, all. Thank you. (I just edited the text to add numbering to the headers -- we're all referring to things by the item number; making it easier to follow.)

    If this was helpful, please UPVOTE. If not, please REPLY so I can improve.

    Thomas Cox
    blockchain governance expert - active in the EOSIO ecosystem
    US: +1 503.516.3886

    (all opinions are my own)

  • thomasbcoxthomasbcox Posts: 148 Sr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    @TheAwakenment said:
    Is this a rough draft of the constitution? or are we to expect more additions to be added later down the line?

    Coming in other posts in this forum, one article at a time. These will be SUPER brief at this stage.

    If this was helpful, please UPVOTE. If not, please REPLY so I can improve.

    Thomas Cox
    blockchain governance expert - active in the EOSIO ecosystem
    US: +1 503.516.3886

    (all opinions are my own)

  • jwilliamsjwilliams Posts: 4 Brand New

    The idea of “negative rights” reminds me of what Dan Larimer mentioned (on one of his older blogs) as a slight twist on the Golden Rule: "Don't do unto others as you don't want them to do unto you." Am I misinterpreting the concept of negative rights? Is a constitution of negative rights, basically, a set of “thou shalt nots”?

  • dvercheredverchere Posts: 6 Brand New

    Here is the Lessig article in case anyone is interested. Also I've attached the Ostrom book which informs much of this discussion.

  • Sam_SapoznickSam_Sapoznick Posts: 68 Member - 2/5 EOS Tokens
    edited March 26

    @thomasbcox said:

    4. Nesting Levels
    The community has frequently discussed the inevitable, and highly desirable, creation of small communities with their own internal rules of membership and their own mutually recognized rights. Such a setup is known as an "enclave" -- a subset or portion of a larger space, in which the people and rules are distinct and different from their surroundings.

    The concept of nesting / enclaves is a natural reflection of the way the larger world is organized. A nation's constitution is the "master" enclave, state constitutions are sub-enclaves of the national one, state legal codes are enclaves within or under the state constitution, county legal codes are enclaves within state legal codes, municipal legal codes are enclaves within county legal codes ---

    Motorcycle clubs are a type of enclave with specific traits and needs, regional boat-manufacturing associations have their unique areas of concern, process, etc. etc.

    The above picture suggests that enclaves in EOS.IO are a requirement to enable the EOS.IO main-net to accomodate thousands to millions of interest groups in varying arrangements of hierarchy, separation, overlap.

    In summary: I support enclaving / nesting as a design principle of the EOS.IO constitution.

  • Sam_SapoznickSam_Sapoznick Posts: 68 Member - 2/5 EOS Tokens
    edited March 25

    @dverchere said:
    Here is the Lessig article in case anyone is interested. Also I've attached the Ostrom book which informs much of this discussion.

    Ostrom's work is copyrighted and for sale, posting the full text here is likely in violation of copyright. The full-text Lessig article status is less clear but JSTOR's terms of service don't appear to allow unrestricted re-publishing. You might consider replacing the PDFs themselves with links to the titles.

  • ligongziligongzi Posts: 3 Brand New
    1. Nesting Levels is great, and will be the basic framework for self-restraint of the whole district and various communities. This is a very critical part of having to include both its openness and its rigor, and to make everyone's behavior under the strict framework.
    2. This is hard to achieve, after all, the most binding of individuals is their human rights and property rights. With the blockchain, the individual attributes are reduced, and even the blockchain asset cannot be fixed to someone. Believe that this is a very slow process, as the chain blocks in the world, the network world and the real world of binding, and more personal credibility, viscosity increases, social relations on the property/life/freedom will have stronger constraints. This part is a big headache,will takes time to consider.Expect more details from Thomas.
    3. Lawrence Lessig is a very powerful and forward-looking legal worker in the constitution and Internet law. Able to refer to and based on his theory, believe that the existing social governance will be absorbed and the constraints on the network will actively promote the construction of eos community.
  • ZachZach Posts: 4 Brand New

    @thomasbcox I'm worried about the possibility of large stakeholders using their tokens to vote themselves into a block producer position. A group of large stakeholders could conspire to keep all of themselves in the block producer roll indefinitely. Once they have been selected a block producer, they will continue to accumulate coins from the block reward, further sementing their positions as block producers as their power within the system increase proportional to the amount of tokens they hold. Once a group of block producers have enough tokens to vote themselves into the position, they will have unchecked power. This may not be a problem immediately, but as reliable block producers continue to accumulate coins, this outcomes seems likely. Has anyone put forth possible solutions to mitigate this issue? Perhaps we should add a clause to the constitution that forbids block producers from voting for themselves.

  • ligongziligongzi Posts: 3 Brand New

    Lessig said The history of American law has been a process of balance.Perhaps eos is formulated in accordance with the constitution of changing community to develop, the basic framework and principle of things, will gradually formed after the June, concrete problems to do specific arbitration.

  • ligongziligongzi Posts: 3 Brand New

    @Zach said:
    @thomasbcox I'm worried about the possibility of large stakeholders using their tokens to vote themselves into a block producer position. A group of large stakeholders could conspire to keep all of themselves in the block producer roll indefinitely. Once they have been selected a block producer, they will continue to accumulate coins from the block reward, further sementing their positions as block producers as their power within the system increase proportional to the amount of tokens they hold. Once a group of block producers have enough tokens to vote themselves into the position, they will have unchecked power. This may not be a problem immediately, but as reliable block producers continue to accumulate coins, this outcomes seems likely. Has anyone put forth possible solutions to mitigate this issue? Perhaps we should add a clause to the constitution that forbids block producers from voting for themselves.

    No one is not worried.

  • SamupahaSamupaha Posts: 52 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    @thomasbcox said:

    5. Life, Liberty and Property
    The domain of the EOSIO Software is largely property. By this I mean, people don't live in a blockchain, and cannot be arrested or imprisoned by one (although they could be arrested and imprisoned by a government, based on that person's actions on a blockchain). It has been the design goal of the EOSIO project to create an ecosystem that can provide DApps and support for applications that protect human life, liberty and property in ways other systems cannot. The Constitution will be geared toward supporting this mission.

    This is a little bit vague. Liberty and property might be possible to explain in a clear way, but I suggest life should be dropped.

    I'm afraid there will be lots of useless arguing over what life actually means. Should EOSIO blockchains kick out all businesses related to abortions? What about other forms of life, like animals and plants? Is cattle industry ok? Or any modern agriculture business, because they destroy an awful lot of biodiversity with plowing and pesticides.

    To avoid that kind of arguing, it would be best to leave life out of design principles.

  • dvercheredverchere Posts: 6 Brand New
    edited March 30

    @Sam_Sapoznick said:

    @dverchere said:
    Here is the Lessig article in case anyone is interested. Also I've attached the Ostrom book which informs much of this discussion.

    Ostrom's work is copyrighted and for sale, posting the full text here is likely in violation of copyright. The full-text Lessig article status is less clear but JSTOR's terms of service don't appear to allow unrestricted re-publishing. You might consider replacing the PDFs themselves with links to the titles.

    Hi Sam - Thanks for the suggestions! You're absolutely correct that there may indeed be a violation of the letter of the law and some of the rather Byzantine property rights of the various publishers. However, since we're having a casual academic discussion and are not primarily engaged in the furtherance of trade, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the spirit of the law and the social norms around information sharing within the context of an informal debate have been more or less observed.

    However, if you feel strongly about the issue perhaps we could have an arbitration hearing on the EOS blockchain after June 1st. I'll write the smart contract and a stake of 10 EOS each should be enough to pay the arbitrators for a ruling! :) <3 :)

  • cryptolionscryptolions Posts: 15 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens
    edited March 30
    1. Life, Liberty and Property.

    Though it is rarely expressed in these terms, society today is trying to decide whether "property" extends to behavioral norms. Can behavioral norms be described as a commons (and thus defended)?

    1. Lessig's article is available here:

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/468039?seq=1

    You can read it for free online, but you have to create an account.

    FWIW, here's my summary and review of the 30-page essay:

    • The title, "The New Chicago School" is described as "playful" by the author. His central theme is identifying legal gray areas for regulation -- a line of inquiry sure to rustle the jimmies of the more libertarian minded crypto folk. He hopes his approach to be seen as a "successor to what we might call an Old Chicago School," namely Milton Friedman's, who was libertarian in everything except monetary policy.

    • He makes observations about the interplay of four forces: law, social norms, markets, and architecture. To me, "architecture" seems like "everything else", and in my opinion, he needs an "everything else" because his categories are rather arbitrary.

    • The choices of these four forces are consistent with the bias of idealistic Americans. If you told an average Russian that these were the main ways to influence people, you might get patted on the head like a small, naive child.

    • Rival categorizations to Lessig's (law, social norms, markets, architecture) may include simple reward/harm, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Austrian School-type analysis of individual goals and incentives, or maybe even the trifunctional social model - workers/warriors/priests.

    • Lessig conveys a lot of faith in bureaucracies in contrast to Mises's criticism of them, which is based on analysis of individual incentives. In my opinion Lessig's bias is common to academics.

    • An example of the interplay of Lessig's four forces is how authorities might disincentivize duels. This is the persistent theme in his essay -- government shaping behavior. He suggests passing a law that denies a person certain privileges (like running for office) if the person participates in a duel. With such a law in place, refusing a duel can no longer be seen as cowardly and dishonorable. The refusal becomes ambiguous.

    • Another example is speed bumps versus ticketing. These seems like good abstractions when trying to design a society, as EOS is doing.

    • There's a lot of fussing over the idea that meaning can be precise or contested between people from two different cultures. I don't understand why this isn't obvious. Perhaps I missed a subtle point.

    • He makes the valuable abstract point that laws, social norms, and markets are all constraints which can substitute for each other. These types of statements are why the vocabulary he provides is useful to the authors of constitutions. To illustrate this, however, he makes what I think is a frighteningly weak argument for intellectual property enforcement in basic scientific research.

    • I think he doesn't like the 10th Amendment (state's rights) to the US Constitution, and feels frustrated that government doesn't have a green light to do more than it already does: "Constitutional law in America is uncertain about the relationship between indirect regulation and constitutional constraints. It has, I suggest, no systematic or coherent approach to the various contexts within which law regulates in these alternative ways."

    Also, "[The New Chicago School] need only ask what . . . a given action by government will do both directly and indirectly to the behavior being regulated."

    He laments that the Constitution only allows "indirect" regulation through spending.

    "Theirs [the framers of the US Constitution] was a world where most state regulation was direct regulation; they wrote a constitution to deal with that world. But what then of a world where most regulation is indirect?"

    His desire to circumvent the Constitution seems fairly explicit:

    "we do not yet have a body of learning that deals systematically with the range of constitutional questions raised by indirect regulation."

    • Imagine applying this logic to the healthy discussion the EOS community has been having regarding vote buying: "Direct vote buying is prohibited by the EOS constitution, but we live in a world where a lot of deals happen indirectly."

    • Lessig correctly discusses the impossibility of post-communist societies simply adopting a western style constitution and expecting it to work without a strong legal tradition.

    Conclusion:

    He provides a potentially useful vocabulary and identifies dynamics which may assist anyone attempting to set a society into motion. His primary concern is how governments can regulate more, something that in my opinion clashes with the frontier spirit of the crypto industry.

  • ralphralph Posts: 2 Brand New

    @Zach said:
    @thomasbcox I'm worried about the possibility of large stakeholders using their tokens to vote themselves into a block producer position. A group of large stakeholders could conspire to keep all of themselves in the block producer roll indefinitely. Once they have been selected a block producer, they will continue to accumulate coins from the block reward, further sementing their positions as block producers as their power within the system increase proportional to the amount of tokens they hold. Once a group of block producers have enough tokens to vote themselves into the position, they will have unchecked power. This may not be a problem immediately, but as reliable block producers continue to accumulate coins, this outcomes seems likely. Has anyone put forth possible solutions to mitigate this issue? Perhaps we should add a clause to the constitution that forbids block producers from voting for themselves.

  • ralphralph Posts: 2 Brand New

    I agree with you Zack and beleave this to be a Huge concern and one that could take down one of best projects in crypto ( my opinion ) perhaps it even goes further and all potential block produces can’t vote for themselves or any other BP and they do something else with their tokens instead . BPs could secrectly agree to vote for other BPs . Every EOS token holder has to do everything we can to not get infiltrated by bad actors , if that happens we all have nothing and will miss out in being involved in this amazing opportunity..:...

  • CryptoSufiCryptoSufi Posts: 5 Brand New
    edited April 3

    Hi guys. I’m a ui ux designer working on interpreting visually how the governance process might work on Eos. Trying to create a user experience that eliminates unnecessary friction. Would love too know what the community thought:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PjjgsDWeWzMRfx-PpLpoJompryr3Pd97AHQL9IceRQU/edit?usp=sharing

    Democracy tools :

    https://app.democracyos.org/eos/topic/5aba18bc1258940004f775b3

    I have began getting feedback and support from developers but still have som misconceptions i have to get rid of. Would love get your comments.

  • ZachZach Posts: 4 Brand New
    edited April 3

    @ralph said:
    I agree with you Zack and beleave this to be a Huge concern and one that could take down one of best projects in crypto ( my opinion ) perhaps it even goes further and all potential block produces can’t vote for themselves or any other BP and they do something else with their tokens instead . BPs could secrectly agree to vote for other BPs . Every EOS token holder has to do everything we can to not get infiltrated by bad actors , if that happens we all have nothing and will miss out in being involved in this amazing opportunity..:...

    There has been an update to the situation since I made my previous post. Dan has said that he will limit the block producer reward to 1% inflation. This helps because it will be much harder for block producers to accumulate coins (and voting power) when they are not making huge profit margins.

    Edit: Nevermind, looks like the 1% limit will actually not be implemented, according to Thomas Cox on the EOSGo live stream just now.

  • maomao Posts: 23 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    It is a good article. I am posting some of my thoughts about this one. I will rewrite these in the way you suggested later.

    I suggest to add
    a. Timely – As things are moving very fast especially with the blockchain technology, shall we add the timely as a very important principle into the constitute
    b. Following the laws in their real jurisdiction – in negative sentence, don’t do things illegally. In real life, everyone is governed by their own jurisdictions. It is for greater good EOS can serve more people. This one is a huge topic and we should have a very long discussion and to seek common ground.
    c. Ultimate holder – I am not sure whether it should be included principals, but I want to mention this now as we don’t want to deal with agents and brokers as it is not their property to protect

    Back to your principles
    1. Negative Rights – After all, negative negative equals positive. And I noticed this principle is written in positive ways. I did not write constitute before but let’s stick to that and discuss if we meet difficulties.
    2. Brevity – Great, it is the constitute, not the rules and regulations.
    3. English Only –Ultimately, I believe there should be only one ultimate version but it naturally happens rather than designed by rule. EOS is a global used system so there will be versions in different languages whether we like it or not. For now or very foreseeable future, I believe the current ultimate version is in English but if things develop, why not to have the ultimate version in Chinese or Japanese or France… I think we should not explicitly put this into the principles.
    4. Nesting – I don’t see why not.
    5. Life Liberty Property – YES! That’s the best part!!!
    6. Synergy with Social Norms – our team has a Psychologist focusing on cross-culture stuff. To our experience, social norms do differ from different group of people. And we do not necessarily put this into the constitute. There might be enclaves into their own level of versions.

    -EOSREAL
    A New World of EOS
    MP/VM: +1-949.468.5388

  • thomasbcoxthomasbcox Posts: 148 Sr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    Mao, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I find myself agreeing with several of your points.

    • Timeliness - yes, we must be quick if we are to keep up with the rest of our industry. I'm not yet willing to put 'timeliness' into the Constitution (I'd want to see sample wording, to start), nevertheless I am willing to put it into the Design Principles, especially if someone can suggest specific wording.
    • Following one's local laws - yes I agree we must each follow the laws of the physical jurisdiction in which we exist. However I don't see a need to mention this in the Constitution or the Design doc. I'm open to arguments and suggested wording.
    • Ultimate Holder - yes, I use the term 'beneficial interest' because it's a well defined term in the world of finance. We must (and I do try to) separate out a mere custodian from a person on whose behalf tokens are held. When Mary buys tokens on Exchange X, from the blockchain's perspective the owner is Exchange X, but from a legal and governance perspective the true beneficial owner is Mary.
    • English Only - I agree this can evolve. I've put English Only in the Design doc but it's not in the Constitution.

    Thank you again for posting. I look forward to further dialog.

    If this was helpful, please UPVOTE. If not, please REPLY so I can improve.

    Thomas Cox
    blockchain governance expert - active in the EOSIO ecosystem
    US: +1 503.516.3886

    (all opinions are my own)

  • maomao Posts: 23 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    Some wording:

    Timeliness: Amendments, proposals and arbitration requests should be settled within reasonable time.

    Unlawful Activity Prohibited: Activity which would violate, or assist in violation of, any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation, sanctions programs administered in the countries or regions, or which involve proceeds of any unlawful activity is prohibited. When applicable local law or country specific laws or regulations conflicts with EOSIO constitutions, one should follow those local requirements.

    @thomasbcox said:
    Mao, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I find myself agreeing with several of your points.

    • Timeliness - yes, we must be quick if we are to keep up with the rest of our industry. I'm not yet willing to put 'timeliness' into the Constitution (I'd want to see sample wording, to start), nevertheless I am willing to put it into the Design Principles, especially if someone can suggest specific wording.
    • Following one's local laws - yes I agree we must each follow the laws of the physical jurisdiction in which we exist. However I don't see a need to mention this in the Constitution or the Design doc. I'm open to arguments and suggested wording.
    • Ultimate Holder - yes, I use the term 'beneficial interest' because it's a well defined term in the world of finance. We must (and I do try to) separate out a mere custodian from a person on whose behalf tokens are held. When Mary buys tokens on Exchange X, from the blockchain's perspective the owner is Exchange X, but from a legal and governance perspective the true beneficial owner is Mary.
    • English Only - I agree this can evolve. I've put English Only in the Design doc but it's not in the Constitution.

    Thank you again for posting. I look forward to further dialog.

    -EOSREAL
    A New World of EOS
    MP/VM: +1-949.468.5388

  • mughatmughat Posts: 3 Brand New

    I would make it simple:

    The purpose of the EOS main chain constitution should be:

    1. To protect and enforce the right of any sub-protocol to deploy on EOS with their independent governance rules/laws.
    2. To protect the EOS main protocol/chain from flaws/attacks that would prevent #1.

    This way you can allow for any subsystem to experiment with different models of rules and laws

  • RomanCryptoLionsRomanCryptoLions Posts: 44 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    I'll look for an opportunity to propose this article in light of the debate about "non-violence".

    EOS token holders have exclusive sovereignty for the digital property rights on the EOS blockchain.

Sign In or Register to comment.