Can arbitrators evolve the EOS constitution?

dvercheredverchere Posts: 6 Brand New

What's the deal with the role of arbitrators and the constitution? How are they related?

Will it work like American law where some kind of a supreme council of arbitrators can create precedent that evolves the EOS constitution?

From my perspective I've always views Marbury v Madison as the original sin of the American Republic since it makes it too easy for Congress to side step complicated political problems.

Ideally the token holders would retain the ability to amend and interpret the constitution. However I would imagine that there will be many cases where various arbitrators would have multiple interpretation of the constitution.

How we will reconcile the various decisions of the arbitrators with the rigidity of the constitution?

Comments

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

    Excellent question.

    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)

  • mtabulomtabulo Posts: 18 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    In my view, yes Arbitrators can make a proposal to amend the constitution. There should then be a referendum, where the proposed amendment is put forward to token holders for a vote on whether or not it should be incorporated in the constitution.

    Only then can the constitution be modified.

    (I'm not familiar with American constitutional law so can't comment on the rest of the post.)

  • ThurgoodMarshallFanThurgoodMarshallFan Posts: 20 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens
    edited April 30

    I've always favored a common law system where prior case precedent acts as another source of law, or at least, a source of persuasive precedent. At a minimum it is hard to be the person deciding a tough issue that has room for disagreement without referencing how analogous disputes have been resolved. Similar to how in a federal trial court in the US, you can reference other federal trial court decisions but they are not binding (as opposed to appeals court decisions, which are). Like, "well look at what this Judge did in a similar case...hint hint."

    I would strongly favor all arbitration rulings being publicly searchable or at least available. We have no congress, no city council, no representative group making rules for us. We only have token holders, many of whom are going to never vote or keep track of much. A system needs a good balance between certainty and the ability to evolve and I do not necessarily favor a system where nothing changes other than by majority vote. Everyone in the EOS blockchain, if arbitration becomes a reality, is implicitly accepting that majority vote is not the only means of authority, so I think this would be a workable system. Otherwise you could hypothetically have an endless loop of arbtirator's ruling, majority vote overturning the order, another ruling, and on and on. There needs to be finality.

  • charnetcharnet Posts: 5 Brand New

    I wonder the same question. Even if it's a vote system, the token holders still can be manipulated by bigs and social medias outside EOS community. I'm truly afraid, those shark token holders will overwhelm the voting system in the future.

  • exploringeosexploringeos Posts: 20 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    It seems to me that making arbitrators' past decisions a source of law causes some big issues.

    1 - It incentivizes activist arbitrators. This way they don't just impose their view on their own cases but on the whole system and every subsequent case bypassing the will of the token holders.

    2 - It makes the law super complicated for the average person.

    I think it would be natural for arbitrators to cite other decisions to bolster their case but making it mandatory would be a mistake.

    I think that a combination of the reputation system surrounding arbitrators and potentially giving arbitrators the ability to propose constitutional changes and an appeal process would ensure justice to a greater degree than current government systems. This would create a nice tension of incentives. Arbitrators probably want to be relatively free to decide based on the facts and not be constrained by amendments so they will only propose amendments that are absolutely necessary. They are also afraid of being overturned on appeal because that would reflect badly on their reputation.

    It feels a little scary to trust a free market of arbitrators but it's also scary to trust a free market of BPs to launch :)

  • billbozbillboz Posts: 15 admin

    Great question, great thoughts above, and something I hope is thoroughly discussed since it will have a very large impact on the chain.
    I would prefer leaning heavily on the guiding documents that are ratified by the community as much as possible.

Sign In or Register to comment.