EOS - State of the constitution
With so many disputes about the validity of the EOS constitution and discussions if it is binding or not binding, i wanted to find out how things really are. Especially with so many half-truths repeated, again and again, i wanted answer to some critical questions.
Is the current constitution binding? (Regardless of being interim or not, because that wouldn't make it less binding for the time being)
Has ECAF authority to perform arbitration on the current EOS blockchain.
Luckily, wading through the EOSGov Telegram posts this weekend I've got a few answers to my questions that had remained unanswered until now.
1) Is the current constitution binding?
The first published BP call on June 19 featured @Dan Larimer who gave a few important in-depth explanations:
So to sum up the most important message, the constitution, is referenced in each transaction and, by using the chain you technically agree to arbitration.
Josh from @eos-canada seems to have a bit different understanding of it, but the outcome is quite similar, namely that the constitution is binding, more on a formal principle than a technical one:
2) Has ECAF authority to perform arbitration on the current EOS blockchain.
Well as it is mentioned in Paragraph 9 of the constitution, which will remain binding until there is a referendum, it seems to be valid. But the question arose is the ECAF in its current state and composition properly representing what is mentioned in the constitution.
Here again a few recent statements help out:
So the ECAF and personell associated, have the explicit support of Thomas Cox, who in the end drafted the EOS constitution.
More importantly, if you have followed the development of the constitution, you might know, that the default arbtration forum has changed several times shortly before the mainnet launch. Originally, it was intended to be ECAF, but was then changed to ICC just a week before, and then back to ECAF again with the following reasoning:
What I (Thomas) think now
As of this writing on 07-Jun-2018, I now believe:
ECAF is quite far along in its development and will be more than adequate to handle the arbitration needs of the community
ICC is far less acceptable as a 'placeholder' forum for reasons described below
Changing the default arbitration forum is actually very likely to be quite difficult and could "strand" many cases between the two systems
So the ECAF had formed just before, it is clear, given the history of changes, that the body mentioned in the constiution, is the one, that had formed just beforehand, and it has the b1 backing.
You might argue, that you didn't vote for them, just as you didn't actually for the constitution, but it is the proposed blockchain by b1, and just as the eos.io code,this was available at the launch, and the beauty of it, is the community can change that at will.
So if the majority of holders decide, they don't care for governance or arbitration, this will just drop from the to be ratified constitution.
Thanks for this, @conceptskip. I agree with Josh from @eos-canada that by using the software you are implicitly agreeing to the rules. The immutable nature of information on a blockchain require that some standards of behavior are established when using the technology. That's just what the constitution is all about.
Thank you @powderskier for that addition. What i am not sure about, if it contradicts what Dan said during the bp meeting, i fail to see the two sides of the medal here. If the constitution hash was incorporated in the chain, it would be a much stronger binding than only with implicit acknowledgement.
hi @conceptskip
Thx for another EOS update. I wanted to ask you some question.
Lately I've read that "EOS will confiscate your tokens if you HODL for too long". Basically if you keep your EOS for longer than 3 years then you will be robbed by EOS and they will steal all your resources. That's how I understood it.
You mind telling me what is your view on it? It definetly made EOS look really bad.
Obviously upvoted. Cheers mate
Yours
Piotr
This point of the constitution will probably be the object of one of the first referendum in EOS history. We have now 3 years to organize a referendum.
Lets not forget that EOS=Bandwidth+CPU+Processing. These 3 things are needed in order to be able to use the EOS blockchain. What would happen if, lets say 30 % of all the EOS would be sleeping on inactive accounts? That would probably affect the whole ecosystem (and the value of our EOS).
On another side, imagine someone has a great accident and goes into a coma during 4 years, finally wakes up an discover his account was terminated?
All these questions do not have yet any definitive answers. An elected team will be dedicated to manage the sleeping accounts and go into contact with the owners before taking decision.
People must understand EOS is not a bank, which does not mean that an EOS Bank for EOS holders will not exist one day inside the EOS ecosystem.
I wish you a nice day!
Thierry
Thank you Thierry for your comprehensive explanation. As regards the coma, scenario, we should not forget, that 3.1 years of coma is, or maybe someone lost in the jungle is a veeeeery rare event, and offchain you are likely declared dead anyway after such long period of times. I think in such scenarios the heirs can easily claim the funds via arbitration, just like with other assets.
Hi @tsto, @conceptskip
Thank you for this brilliant and amazing reply @tsto! :)
Im very sorry for such a delay with my replies but currently Ive been overwhelmed with amount of work that has been related to my latest contest. I never expected to receive such an amazing support.
Thank you for sharing your view. Just wanted to let you know that finally I had a chance to read your comment. Appreciate your time.
I actually agree with you tsto. I've been thinking about coma or other accidents. What if something happend to me and I will end up in hospital for 1 year and last transaction I did on EOS was 2,5 year ago.
Why @conceptskip would you assume that coma/some tragedy would have to happend only right after your last transaction?
What if you had accident and lost your memory ? What EOS came up with us just wrong and will put off many potential investors.
Enjoy your weekend :)
Yours
Piotr
Hi @crypto.piotr, thanks for your valuable addition, it's a good point you bring up, with your example. The new constitution proposal, which is likely to succeed, will remove that paragraph entirely. Yet I think it would be worthwhile to deal with inactive accounts, maybe bye only renting out their resources until reclaimed.
I also agree with Josh. When you use the software, you agree to the terms. Great post.
You got a 53.66% upvote from @cabbage-dealer courtesy of @conceptskip!
Delegate today and earn a 100% share of daily rewards!