Brainstorming a multi-cameral legislature for EOS.

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

Goal: Introduce ideas for improving EOS legislation with a "Houses" model.


In this video at about 02:00, @thomasbcox refers to voting by token holders as the Legislative Branch of EOS governance.

He discusses the possibility of having different "Houses". I think such a model would greatly benefit EOS's long-term success.

Problems with having one single procedure for funding and/or referendums:

1) Voter apathy. There's a lot to keep track of. With a monolothic process, many issues and ideas can get lost in the noise.

2) Without side-by-side systems, there is no basis for comparison, critique, and improvement. Having different procedures and/or different groups completing similar work generates a lot of useful data.

What is a legislative "House"?

A separate body of the legislative government. Usually, legislatives are Uni-, Bi-, or Tricameral. There are usually two rationales given. First is a check and balance on the other house.

"A formidable sinister interest may always obtain the complete command of a dominant assembly by some chance and for a moment, and it is therefore of great use to have a second chamber of an opposite sort, differently composed, in which that interest in all likelihood will not rule." — Walter Bagehot, 19th century British essayist

The second rationale, is the empowering of different interest groups. The U.S. Senate, before the 17th Amendment, represented the interests of State governments, and the U.S. House of Representatives represented the interests of the people.

Why use a system of Houses?

Houses help solve both problems listed above.

1) It is easier to take initiative for people who are in smaller groups.

2) The different cultures and processes that evolve in different houses will be a great basis for comparison and improvement.


3) Arbiters or devs are critical to the eco-system, but without their own house, they risk losing their voice.

What Houses should we have?

One for every identifiable group in the eco-system, and we should create new houses when new interest groups arise.

General House - This can be the standard proposal process as outlined elsewhere. It mimicks the process used by Dash. We can hedge against the failure of this experiment by routing a vast majority of WP funds through this process.

House of Commons - The idea here is to have a low bar of entry for proposals. Fees are low and/or refundable. Proposals will be plentiful.

House of Lords - Voting here requires a high reputation score. Fees are high and non-refundable. Proposals will be few, but they'll get a lot of attention.

House of Devs - For developers who've crossed a certain threshold of contributions.

House of Dapps - For the owners of smart contracts which exceed a threshold of usage.

House of Judges - Arbiters will have unique problems and unique perspectives. Great things might happen if we give them their own channel for fudning projects. Since they are a separate branch of government, maybe they should not be able to propose governance changes through this house.

House of BPs - Since BPs have their own funding, maybe they should not be able to propose projects through this house, only governance amendements and feature requests.

How might voting work?

The document "States and Timeline for Project Proposals" is a basis of comparison.

Every House can develop its own process to reach the "Final Proposal" state.

For Projects:

If a House is proposing a project and operating inside of its allocated budget, then we can lower the standard of approval from 10% yes / 5% quorum. Another idea is consider the project approved, but give other houses veto power.

For Governance Changes:

We should probably be more careful with governance changes.

Comments and criticisms welcome. I'd be especially curious to hear the comments of anyone familiar with BitShares's legislative problems.


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

    It is very interesting exercise. I think we are achieving tri-cameral through BP, Arbitration, Blockone. Houses can be process oriented light version of that tri-cameral? Where can I find BitShare/steemit voting/legislative history?

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

  • JetseSprey_EOSIOAmsJetseSprey_EOSIOAms Posts: 29 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    It is indeed interesting. EOS gives the opportunity to rethink and finetune many of the fundamental notions on the functioning of a democracy.

    In the Netherlands we do have two chambers. One is the "commons", the other is supposed to be the "chamber of reflection". Both reflect the political wishes of the Netherlands as a whole. There is no regional representation. The latter chamber was supposed to check if proposals are legally possible and fit for their purpose. In practice however the chamber of reflection has become the "chamber of appeal" to the commons' decisions. Not ideal.

    I believe we should have checks and balances in place. To protect the minority and to uphold the constition against sudden and unexpected majorities. This could be done by some kind of veto mechanism. A chamber representing the BPs could block a decision of the commons. I am not particularly fond of that idea.

    I have suggested to have a chamber in place that checks if the proposals do not hamper certain fundamental constitutional EOS rights. To avoid that we will have a chamber of appeal the scope of their work should be just this test. This chamber is there to protect the constition. In US terms, this will be the Supreme Court.

    Your idea has more platforms in it. This is great to align e.g. the bps. However it is always best to find common ground. It therefore seems wise to have at least one platform, the most important one, where everyone "meets" and discusses. Decision made in that chamber should be subject to scrutiny by the judges.

    It is just the good old trias politica.

    Jetse Sprey
    EOS Amsterdam

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

    Before I knew that EOS was going to have such comprehensive governance, I had been thinking about how to have a voting system in a distributed system like this. Here's a quick sketch of what I had thought of. Not sure how it will relate to EOS.

    The idea I had was that instead of a fixed number of houses and a fixed number of representatives there would be proxies or delegates. The token holders can delegate their votes to their proxy and the proxy then votes on their behalf. However if the proxy ever votes in a way that a token holder doesn't like they can then reverse the vote that the proxy cast on their behalf within some grace period.

    There would then be an unlimited number of proxies who could organize into 'houses' however they see fit. The houses could come and go on an ad hoc basis without any formalities. This allows the market to decide what houses there ought to be. Theses houses need to have a minimum amount of voting power to be able to introduce legislation.

    You could imagine that people who are really interested in keeping inflation low would become a public proxy campaigning on this platform. There would probably be several of them and then they could come together as a house to propose limits on inflation. While there could be others who want to support developers and then form a house to do that etc.

    The big difference with my original concept here is that the proxies would be compensated in someway via the system based on the number of delegated votes they have. That way they have an incentive to do what their constituents want at least most of the time. They also have income so they are less tempted by special interests trying to buy their votes. There could be 'professional proxies' who are compensated so they have the time to consider the votes fully.

    This compensation could be built into the worker proposal system some how.

    I hope this is helpful or at least interesting :)

Sign In or Register to comment.