EOS Alliance | Constitution Referendum Series | Summary | Week 4

Image courtesy of EOS Alliance

Recap of the Alliance open calls from Week 4, as interpreted by Martin Breuer (EOS Nation, Regional Director)


Monday, September 10th 1pm UTC started Week #4 of the EOS Alliance Constitution Referendum Series with the 3rd round of Community Calls.

This week’s goal is to finish analyzing the current interim constitution, so the community could get into Dan Larimer’s proposal in the following week.

The call had 33 participants and was hosted by Kevin Wilcox, Head of Communications of the EOS Alliance. Live Translation during the call was done by Katherine of EOSBixin, which was brilliantly managed.

After a short welcome phase participants were sent to break out groups and each group was assigned one article. There was a total of 5 breakout groups discussing article X — XV.

Without further ado, I’ll jump into the findings of the 5 break out groups.

Group 1

Article X — Choice of Law

“Choice of law for disputes shall be, in order of precedence, this Constitution and the Maxims of Equity.”

Their findings, questions & suggestions were:

  • Intend of the article is to set the jurisdiction and make it clear that no outside government is involved
  • The group thought that the “Maxims of Equity” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxims_of_equity) are generally accepted as a fall back if the EOS Constitution would not be sufficient in any specific case
  • There was much discussion if the principles of the “Maxims of Equity” should be added or distilled into the Constitution directly, in order to be more independent from outside referenced articles and to prevent the use of different terminologies or interpretations across the web.
  • Furthermore, it was suggested to give more weight to article III, the right to create contract. Meaning, that if a specific case between 2 parties is not covered by the constitution, the contract between those parties then should be used as the law to govern. That is as long as it doesn’t conflict with the constitution itself.

Group 2

Article XI — Amending

“This Constitution and its subordinate documents shall not be amended except by a vote of the token holders with no less than 15% voter participation among tokens and no fewer than 10% more Yes than No votes, sustained for 30 continuous days within a 120 day period.”

Their findings, questions & suggestions were:

  • The purpose of the article is to avoid vote manipulation by large token holders.
  • The necessary 10% vote advantage should make it harder for “Whales” to influence decisions.
  • The fact that votes need to be sustained for 30 continuous days within a 120 day period will stabilize the voting process itself. It also makes the voting process clearer and easier to analyze.

In the chat Achilles mentioned that 50% voter participation is a minimum standard for international referendum practice. He thinks that with a 15% minimum voting can be easily manipulated.

Group 3

Article XII — Publishing

“Members may only publish information to the Blockchain that is within their right to publish. Furthermore, Members voluntarily consent for all Members to permanently and irrevocably retain a copy, analyze, and distribute all broadcast transactions and derivative information.”

Their findings, questions & suggestions were:

  • The group questioned the meaning of the term “member”. Does it mean token holder, block producer or stand-by block producer?
  • The term “rights” would also need to be more clearly defined in order to avoid confusion.
  • Would the “published information” be on chain and therefore not changeable afterwards?
  • How are administrators selected and how can we trust them?
  • Will there be any potential threat of censorship for the publishers?

Group 4

Article XIII — Informed Consent

“All service providers who produce tools to facilitate the construction and signing of transactions on behalf of other Members shall present to said other Members the full Ricardian contract terms of this Constitution and other referenced contracts. Service providers shall be liable for losses resulting from failure to disclose the full Ricardian contract terms to users.”

Their findings, questions & suggestions were:

  • Who is taking the responsibility of disclosing the Ricardian contract?
  • What happens if the Ricardian contract is not disclosed?
  • For the protection of the main net, the group mentions the possibility of 3rd party security audits.
  • Some group members had concerns that choosing one or a few of such 3rd parties would cause centralization.
  • They suggest further discussions on the topic of 3rd party security audits.

Group 5

Article XIV — Severability

“If any part of this Constitution is declared unenforceable or invalid, the remainder will continue to be valid and enforceable.”

Their findings, questions & suggestions were:

  • The group suggests several changes in wording to be more accurate i.e. “part” is not a legal term and therefore should be changed to “clause”.
  • The term “declared” is not used legal practice and therefore shouldn’t be in the article.
  • They suggest adding the term “illegal” .
  • The overall change would result in the following:

“If any clause of this Constitution is illegal invalid or unenforceable under any present or future law, the remainder will continue to be legal valid and enforceable.”

  • Furthermore, they would suggest moving the article to the end of the constitution as it would be more fitting the means of the article.

Group 5 had some spare time and decided to discuss article XIX. They found that it should be completely taken out of the constitution, due to redundancy. Counterparts would be a standard in commercial contracts, but in their opinion, it doesn’t apply since the EOS constitution is not going to be executed by multi-parties. Instead it is intended to be a governance instrument for the entire EOS community.


This finished up the group summaries.

Since there was another call scheduled by the “EOS Alliance Arbitration & Dispute Resolution Community”, which many participants wanted to join, the final part of suggestions for general improvements for the calls was cut short.

This seemed to be totally reasonable, since the Arbitration & Dispute Resolution Community calls are a great source of information and place for in-depth discussion.

You can find it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fRthpmD4Wc

If you want to join other calls this week you can find them in the newly introduced EOS Alliance schedule here:

https://eosalliance.io/events/list/

There has been increasing activity on Zoom and also Crowdcast in the recent weeks, having them all scheduled in one place is a great improvement, especially with more and more facilitators starting their own in-depth calls on specific topics.

See you on the calls!


EOS Nation is a standby block producer on the EOS blockchain. We can be found:

Website | Telegram | Twitter | Facebook | Steemit | TRYBE | Bihu 币乎

Help us continue to add value to the EOS ecosystem. Vote eosnationftw for BP
Like what you read? Give EOS Nation a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.