The EOS network is in its early days, yet it seems to be a real “state” with two constitutions, judicial system, parties and other entities that a proper state should have. Nowadays, the EOS community is split into two schools of libertarian thought: the minarchists and the anarcho-capitalists.
It is important to note, both the minarchists and the anarcho-capitalists are libertarians who want less government on the network and express a true passion to make EOS the most advanced platform among other blockchains. This is the only area they come together. Here go differences. Well, it’s time to choose your side.
Minarchists
The minarchists believe that the government must protect citizens (EOS community) from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud, enforcing property laws and provide users with sacred cows that the state is supposed to provide. This group stands for the first version of the Constitution and for EOS Core Arbitrage Forum (ECAF) orders to be a minimal form of government on the network.
The minarchists want block producers (BP) to follow the ECAF orders without hesitation as the thought that BPs need to be policed by another entity is one of the core ideas within the minarchist group. These guys are against any changes in the Constitution and insist that the possibility of vote-buying does not fit the EOS democracy.
Anarcho-capitalists
The motto of the anarcho-capitalists could be: “More freedom to the free state.” The anarcho-capitalists consider the EOS community an independent entity that has to protect itself without government or ECAF interference. Anarcho-capitalists truly believe that protection should be provided by minimal market principals, means EOS users need to manage their accounts by layered smart contracts, multi-sig, etc.
Claiming that BPs should consider orders from ECAF as recommendations that need to be approved or disapproved by Block Producers. The CTO of Block.One, Dan Larimer, posted “The Intent of Code is Law” (aka the Constitution V2) a month later after the first Constitution was introduced. Larimer insisted:
1) ECAF must be an arbitrage for core problems not for every single issue while BPs should be in charge;
2) users have to care about their protection by themselves;
3) Ricardian Contract, which makes the code literally readable, must follow every smart contract in the block.
The anarcho-capitalists are ok with vote-buying as it will help to develop the EOS ecosystem by bringing token holders’ attention not only to trading but to the elections.
As we see, the libertarians have some issues within their groups that need to be discussed and resolved.
The question is, would these debates lead to the improvements rather than to the crisis?
