EOS Alliance | Constitution Referendum Series | Summary | AUG 27th 2018
Recap of the Alliance open calls from Monday August 27th, as interpreted by Martin Breuer (EOS Nation, Regional Director)
A week ago the EOS Alliance was publicly announced and initiated a 12 week program to facilitate the needed discussion around the current proposals for an EOS Constitution.
After a week of community outreach, the EOS Alliance started the first meetups in form of a Zoom Call. Staying true to its mission to “Empower EOS for all” those meetups are organized in English, Chinese and Korean.
The first meeting (August 27th at 1300 UTC) was hosted by Thomas Cox and was capped at 49 participants, which left a couple of people in the waiting room unable to join.
Let me elaborate a bit on that.
The limitation of participants is related to the structure of those meetups, which places all attendees in smaller breakout groups. Each of those smaller break out groups contain a maximum of 7 people and is managed by one facilitator. Since prior to the meetup there were 7 facilitators registered the number of possible attendees equaled 49.
Ergo the more facilitators the more people can attend.
You can apply as an Alliance volunteer here: Application link
That being said if anyone couldn’t attend all those meetings have been recorded and can be viewed here: YouTube
After a short introduction of the program and its intention, the larger group was sent into breakout groups. In those groups, each member did a short introduction and then discussed two basic questions which were:
- What is the most important thing a Constitution must do for EOS Mainnet? And why?
- What are you most worried about regarding the Constitution of EOS Mainnet? What do you fear might happen?
Each breakout group session is organized in a 30 min discussion and a 15min summary. After the summary, each breakout group elects a speaker (which mustn’t be the facilitator) that then reports the breakout groups findings to the larger groups.
These are the slides for the facilitator: Slides
After 45 minutes in the smaller breakout rooms, all participants found themselves back in the larger group meeting room and were asked to share in the chat what was their favorite part of this experience. After that, the speakers of each breakout group reported to the larger group their findings.
The responses from each breakout group were superbly summarized in the Alliance Telegram Chat by Brandon Cummings, which I’ll just repost here:
Group 1 Q1 (What const. Should do?) responses:
Protecting individual rights, Establishing trust and legitimacy to EOS mainnet as a whole.
Helping to define the rules of engagement to move forward.Group 1 Q2 (Concerns of const.?) responses:
Ambiguity, not defining those things (mentioned in Q1) and what the rules are.
Not finding consensus and getting stuck in debate.
Special interest may take hold no matter what we come up with.
Not doing a good job explaining to the rest of the crypto space why it’s important (to have governance & constitution), and that it will be hard for people to understand and we won’t get a buy in from them.Group 2 Q1(What const. Should do?) responses:
Protect life, liberty, and property of the token holders and investors.
Having standard rules for big companies and investors to follow, and if they don’t, having protections from this in the articles.
Protections for the large and growing number of people that have lost their keys, need to make a new account, or new keys to an existing account. These things being a big part of value EOS provides over other blockchains.
BPs maintaining a healthy mainnet, and having recourse if they don’t maintain that.Group 2 Q2 (Concerns of const.?) responses:
Having one central place people have to go to ( for instance only having 1 arbitration group) that could falter or be hindered by someone with too much power…and preventing people from having more options to be rectified.Group 3 Q1(What const. Should do?) responses:
Outline roles and responsibilities of the different member types of the community and clearly establish delineations of power of who can do what, and how they are granted that authority to do so.
Having it readable so that an onlooker can look at it and get an idea of how EOS defines itself.
We have a very peculiar thing we are trying to create in that EOS is both a community that requires a constitution, but it’s also a DAPP platform that should have some kind of terms of service orientated towards a developer that describes what they are entitled to, and here is how you engage with the platform. It needs to walk the line between being a constitution to the community and terms of service for development platforms… that also says to the reader; this is how EOS defines itself.Group 3 Q2 (Concerns of const.?) responses:
We end up making a framework that is too rigid and over-regulated, rather than providing freedom to move freely.Group 4 Q1(What const. Should do?) responses:
The constitution needs to set the rules for the EOS community to engage.Group 4 Q2 (Concerns of const.?) responses:
Having a never ending process of discussing the constitution and never having a ratified constitution.
Implementing the constitution and who would be responsible.Group 5 Q1(What const. Should do?) responses:
Be enforceable and be independent….Anyone should be able to read this document and understand what it is trying to say.
Define our basic values and goals…The broader it is, the more future proof it will be
Community consensus on what constraints should be.
Group 5 Q2 (Concerns of const.?) responses:
Lack of clarity and certainty that it will be enforceable…potentially running into a situation where two people can hold up the same document and be on different sides of a dispute and feel vindicated by that same document.
If it’s not broad enough it won’t be relevant in the future
Not having enough ‘teeth’.
Should be accessible to all, with handbook/supporting documents.Group 6 Q1(What const. Should do?) responses:
Give a chance for everyone to participate and be fair and open to all.Group 6 Q2 (Concerns of const.?) responses:
Difference between east and west culture in terms of using your power for anything, like voting….We think it’s very important to incentivize the token holders to vote.Group 7 Q1(What const. Should do?) responses:
EOS constitution should protect life, liberty and property.
Properly express the opinion and preference of the token holders
Define a clear direction for the community
Be integrative to all token holders regardless of their token balance and wallet.
How the constitution will interact with off chain states and legal systemsGroup 7 Q2 (Concerns of const.?) responses:
How will voting for constitution represent the wants of all token holders with the presence of whales?Group 8 Q1(What const. Should do?) responses:
Reach consensus domestically and abroadGroup 8 Q2 (Concerns of const.?) responses
How to reach a balance in power…EOS being kind of centralized and decentralized at the same time.
Concern about ordinary token holders and investors that don’t care about govt. And consensus…how to attract these people into the system
After the reports were done participants were encouraged to write in the chat, suggestions on how to improve future meetups. Thomas Cox then thanked everyone for their input and went into the waiting room to talk to those who’ve been waiting there. The meeting ended at this point.
On a personal note, I want to mention that I appreciated the chance to act as a facilitator and I want to congratulate the participants on the respectful manner in which all discussions took place.
The smaller breakout groups are a great way to make the more quiet voices be heard.
In my opinion this format is an enrichment for the community and I’m excited to take part in the coming meetups.
