You're correct about article ii, but I'm not certain we agree on BP's having the "right" to decline an arbitrators' "order" (not a proposal).

S. 3.5 Rules for Dispute Resolution:

"The emergency Arbitrator has the AUTHORITY to order or award any interim measures that are deemed necessary. Any Member affected by such orders or interim awards SHALL UNDERTAKE TO COMPLY WITH THEM WITHOUT DELAY."

You may be correct but there's not enough evidence for me to draw a conclusion upon. As you pointed out, it's still a very early stage in the game.

Dan did recommend restorative restitution. Just this morning, he stated it was his personal belief eos.store should make the victim whole again. So far, eos.store agreed to do so upon the condition that they're forced to do so by the community, not out of their willingness for the sake of integrity. Often times when you find one cockroach, another isn't very far away.

So eos.io has given four separate excuses for why they didn't update the blacklist, stated they'd contact the man and make it right, issued a public statement that placed blame on ECAF, then stated they would only make it right with the victim if they are forced to do so.

Did you know that the majority of citizens living in Communist China are more prone to watching a crime being committed than to interject due to fear of being sued for harming the assailant? Fact.

INTEGRITY!!!