The Five Estates of EOS and the Vested Hand
EOS Governance and the True Source of EOS Power
In my last article,
I proposed the following;
I MOVE to delegate the powers of ARBITER and SCRIBE, each to their own CANDIDATE POOLS, each with their own CONTINUOUS VOTING SYSTEMS operating within the DELEGATED PROOF OF STAKE(DPOS) system in the same way BLOCK PRODUCERS are pooled and voted upon.In that proposal I also highlighted the virtues of;
- Cooperative Competition that occurs within Candidate Pools
- Balance of Power that occurs between Candidate Pools with the Separation of Powers
In this article I would like to offer metaphors to help put this proposal in context and further it’s understanding.
Separating the Estates of Power
Today many modern nation states also define in their constitutions a Separation of Powers between three formal branches;
- Legislative —
makes laws - Executive —
carries out laws - Judicial —
interprets laws - And the crucial yet informal role of The Free Press.
The FIVE Estates of EOS Power
If we can borrow and extend from these models we can visualize the Five Estates of EOS, or the Five EOS Realms of Power, or simply the Five EOS Powers.
Developers & Entrepreneurs[
legislative]— creates open source code* BLOCK PRODUCERS[
executive] — executes open source code* ARBITERS[
judicial]— interprets intent of open source code* SCRIBES[
neutral press] — neutrally records, reports, facilitates, translates and educates.The Free Press[
free press]— keeps all other powers in check* indicates a formal Delegated Proof of Stake(DPoS) Role
How does it all work?
Developers & Entrepreneurs create open source code that BLOCK PRODUCERS may choose to execute on the EOS blockchain which produces transactions, however from time to time those transactions create disputes between accounts requiring resolution or arbitration; all of which is recorded and reported by SCRIBES who also facilitate and translate meetings, as well as educate EOS Token Holders and the general public.The Free Press has a special role just as it does in many nation states of providing a check on all other powers.
Who checks who? How are the Separated Powers checked and balanced.
BLOCK PRODUCERS check the code of Developers & EntrepreneursARBITERS resolve issues resulting from code executed by BLOCK PRODUCERS.SCRIBES neutrally informs EOS Token Holder voting on internal EOS affairs, giving EOS Token Holders a check over BLOCK PRODUCERS, ARBITERS and SCRIBES. The Free Press checks the power of all.
The Vested Hand of the EOS Token Holders
If we abstract these ideas to the human hand we might borrow from our own anatomy and visualize;
the index finger as the Developers & Entrepreneurs that point the way;
the middle finger being the strongest finger, representing the BLOCK PRODUCERS, the one doing the work of producing the blockchain itself.
the ring finger representing social contract and ARBITERS resolving exceptions
the little finger representing SCRIBES and the promise of neutrality.
the opposable thumb representing The Free Press exercising free speech and providing a check to the other four powers.
More succinctly,
index finger — Developers & Entrepreneurs — Legislativemiddle finger — BLOCK PRODUCERS — Executivering finger — ARBITERS — Judiciallittle finger — SCRIBES — Internal Public Affairsopposable thumb — The Free Press — Vloggers & Bloggers & The Rest of Us EverywhereAll of these powers work together to maintain a Balance of Separated Powers.
The Prehensile Human Hand … Vested
Currently the only continuous vote is implemented on the choice of which BLOCK PRODUCERS are to become part of the 21 member candidate pool that actively produce blocks. In my last article, EOS Joy and a Radical Proposal for the Separation of Powers, I proposed that we create similar continuous voting for both ARBITERS and SCRIBES for their 13 and 8 member candidate pools respectively. But what if voters were able to affect the size of the candidate pools themselves. So instead of accepting a fixed number of candidates for each of these three pools, EOS Token Holders could vote for an increase or decrease in the size of each candidate pool in addition to voting for which candidates occupy their respective pools.
So just like the prehensile human hand contracts and expands to grasp and release objects, EOS Token Holders can directly affect the incentive economics with each pool by increasing or decreasing their size. This has an interesting dynamic beyond voting for candidates.
If for example, a large number of EOS Token Holders felt that for one reason or another, new ideas and innovations were needed within the EOS ecosystem, EOS Token Holders could increase the pool size to allow for more newcomers. These newcomers come at the expense of the candidate pool incumbents, so that needs to be taken into account. In fact you could potentially increase the size of the pool enough that the reward approaches zero. For example, if the candidate pool size of active BLOCK PRODUCERS was increased from 21 to a maybe 30 or 50, the reward to each BLOCK PRODUCER would be dramatically reduced and could drop below the cost of maintaining servers, employing technical talent, producing blocks, and importantly, making a profit, which could effectively shut down the network. Now why EOS Token Holders would do that to their own blockchain is an interesting question. One possible reason might be to thwart takeover attempts. It’s almost like how in the wild, some animals have evolved to play dead as a strategy for survival. Could this have a stabilizing effect to the EOS blockchain relative to the alternative of a hard fork in response to a takeover attempt? Would the mere threat of this kind of recourse from the EOS Token Holders discourage such attempts by malicious actors?
What about the opposite case? Under what circumstances might the EOS Token Holders want to decrease the pool size? What if EOS Token Holders felt the immediate need for more speed and a particular technology was available promising to do just that but at a significantly higher cost than the current BLOCK PRODUCER server setup? And at the same time a few top BLOCK PRODUCERS were proving to be good stewards and enough EOS Token Holders felt confident enough to slightly reduce the candidate pool size so as to increase their rewards and provide them with the necessary funding. Yes there would be some other incidental winners and losers, but the interests of the EOS Token Holders would be better served.
By thinking in these terms we can imagine the EOS Token Holders with more tools and finer control to express their vested interests.
Vesting — definition
“In law, vesting is to give an immediately secured right of present or future deployment. One has a vested right to an asset that cannot be taken away by any third party, even though one may not yet possess the asset. When the right, interest, or title to the present or future possession of a legal estate can be transferred to any other party, it is termed a vested interest.”
So in addition to casting 30 votes for BLOCK PRODUCERS, a similar vote could be cast for ARBITERS as well as SCRIBES. Finally, a vote could be cast for the size of the each candidate pool, maybe a simple ‘plus’ or ‘minus’ that was aggregated across voters that would net an increase or decrease to each candidate pool size.
From the perspective of the EOS token Holder, they are simply expressing their individual will upon the EOS blockchain, but taken collectively, they are able to effectively shape the internal economics of the chain itself. Is this too much power for the token holder or the next evolution of investor activism?
EOS Governance Must be Understandable
Using the metaphor of the human hand is simply a visual and literary device that seems simple and natural. It also seems to follow naturally as a metaphor from our tested forms of democracy. So let’s take it simply as a way to help everyone understand how EOS can work to separate and balance powers as well as fulfill the will of EOS Token Holders. Nothing more and nothing less. I’m simply suggesting a way of thinking and communicating some of the ideas regarding governance. It’s important at this early stage of the growth of the EOS ecosystem that we balance the necessary complexities of creating such a system with the understanding that to reach mass adoption EOS governance needs to be understandable to the average person who is busy living their lives doing the kinds of normal things that normal people do. Those are the people that represent the critical mass of adoption that will manifest EOS and Decentralized Autonomous Organizations globally. Building an EOS governance layer is not a simple task, but at some level it should be easily understood and communicated.
Conclusion … EOS is LIGHT
Clearly there is much to consider when implementing any kind of direct stakeholder voting system but the point is that with Decentralized Autonomous Organizations and EOS specifically we have the opportunity, more than ever before, to align the incentives between stakeholder and governance. The future of EOS depends on how much we can tighten the feedback loop between what is happening on the EOS blockchain, including the affairs of BLOCK PRODUCERS, ARBITERS AND SCRIBES and EOS Token Holder voting. Maintaining transparency and light into the internal workings of the chain and keeping the token holders voting, educated, and fully aware of the affairs of the chain is paramount.
In fact it may be the very thing that powers EOS. Other blockchains require lots electricity to operate, however with EOS it is information, light, and transparency that inform the EOS Token Holders and their votes, which in turn drive the wondrous incentive economics of Cooperative Competition that is Delegated Proof of Stake and the chain itself.
It is this very combination of competition and cooperation within each of the Separated Powers; checks and balances between the Separated Powers; information, light and transparency shone upon the Separated Powers that informs the continuous voting by EOS Token Holders which drives the entire EOS ecosystem.Let’s separate and check and balance the powers of EOS.
Let’s bring the light and transparency to EOS .
Let’s recognize the true source of power and build an informed and robust feedback cycle between token holders and the powers that govern the Decentralized Autonomous Organization that is EOS.
