EOS Amsterdam – EOS Gov Telegram Channel summary August 15 – August 16 2018

BPs:

User Sun Tzu: As we don’t speak for b1 or BPs we can only interpret. Offer opinions. My opinion would be that if a BP did not read that announcement as a shot across the bows, then I would question that BPs capabilities to run a business. User Todor: https://twitter.com/BrendanBlumer/status/1021320052203769856 I think they reconsidered after that article and decided not to vote until they are minority of voting tokens.

User Sharif Bouktila: Expecting B1 not to vote and asking everyone else to is a mistake. Like it or not, they are a key community member and need to participate more openly. User Sun Tzu: Indeed. But being part of a community also requires them to understand that they are the elephant in the room, and when they move, they need to signal it well in advance, consult and listen. Sharif Bouktila: 100% – We need more than one liner telegram messages to signal intent and taste test sentiment.

User Todor: If I was B1 I would ask BPs to get my tokens separated in 10 accounts so I could vote more responsibly. User Sharif Bouktila: How would that work? The idea which I saw and understood was that B1 would use their 100m to whitelist compliant BPs. The other votes would still determine the ranking. Active/BackUp. The challenge is that every BP which B1 votes for will become a BackUp, and there will be an unclimbable cliff if a team doesn’t have a vote. User Todor: A 100mil vote is practically a gatekeeper. How it would work: Just transfer the 100 mil in chunks to several other accounts controlled by b1, so they can choose how much tokens to vote with some granularity. User Thomas Cox: Not currently physically possible, as far as I can tell. The B1 account is locked up with 100 mil in a single chunk. They cannot unstake it, so they cannot transfer it into multiple smaller accounts. They get to access 1/10 of it after 1 year. User Douglas Horn: Small tech points to improve understanding: B1 is actually constantly vesting their portion of the 100 million EOS. It happens block by block if you look at the code. Thomas Cox: I was wondering about that. There were two different descriptions given in two places, and I don’t read C++. Can you post a pointer to the lines of code in GitHub? That’d be perfect (for folks who CAN read the code). Douglas Horn: Yes I can. User Cesar: Hmm b1 has their 100m and if they want to unstake, they only can unstake the amount based in the 10y timeframe. But they didn’t call unstake yet. https://bloks.io/account/b1https://github.com/EOSIO/eosio.contracts/blob/master/eosio.system/src/delegate_bandwidth.cpp#L380

Voting:

User Transisto replies to User Aneta about WPF being a honey pot: Great input. My suggestion for WPF:

1. Burn 100% of what was accumulated ASAP
   2 Have BP decide on a % voting threshold scheme for any future allocations
2. Allow for negative voting on WP
3. Implement a mechanism to allow individual stakeholders to burn their proportion of the WP fund without any minimum threshold, (Proportion relative to the amount of voting or staked tokens, not total coin supply)
   User Rick Schlesinger: Why have BPs involved in managing the WPF at all? Curious to understand how negative voting is envisioned to work. Would this remove a minimum threshold and an abstain would be counted as negative? User Thomas Cox: My presumption is that unlike a BP race where you either vote for a BP or you abstain, each referendum would need to be a ‘vote yes or no’ – so a ‘negative vote’ is a vote against. This makes sense as the Constitution calls for 10% more yes than no votes for a given referendum item to pass (55 to 45). The Yes-or-No vote is certainly what the drafters (me and others) had in mind. User Transisto: Why BP? They’re the one pushing new software updates and they are voted in by stakeholders for their wisdom.

Ostrom:

User Marcin has a question for User Thomas Cox (since it’s a long post I’ll only post the question): So my question is, where is the Common Pool Resource here, the one that no one really owns, but everyone has access to? This was the merit of Ostrom’s research to my understanding.

EOS Amsterdam – EOS Arbitration Public Chat Telegram Channel summary August 15 – August 16 2018
(Summary from 12:00 August 15th till 12:00 August 16h)
User Vincent Ho asks a few questions: Enquiry about the fees structure,

1. Is there any guideline for man-hours vs complexity quotation? (How transparent are the man-hours calculations)
2. Will fee quotations differ by case natures/types or by arbitrators/case managers?
3. Will stage 2 fees be purely man-hours quoted and independent of the claimed reward?
   User Moti T: There are two things: estimates which will be just that i.e an estimate of hours to resolve a case. Plus there will be other costs that may need to be factored in, eg if the forum needs to employ a smart contract developer to analyse a buggy contract.
   Billed amounts: from the forum perspective will be full transparency into hours worked on a case.
   Amount billed per hour will depend on seniority/expertise of Arb. If an Arbitrator is new then they will be expected to bill at the low end of the hourly rate. If the Arbitrator is the world’s foremost expert on some arcane topic that matches with the case then they could bill at the top end.