EOS Amsterdam – EOS Gov Telegram Channel summary August 23 – August 24 2018
(Summary from 12:00 August 23th till 12:00 August 24th)Constitution
User Thiago Canellas: @eosnewyork Do you have an opinion if the constitution is arbitrable? And also if any token holder holder transacting in the chain have agreed to its terms and thus is covered by the arbitration defined in it (ECAF at the moment)? User Kevin Rose: The constitution was installed by the ABP. Anyone that transacts on chain are bound by its rules. Per its rules any dispute between any token-holder which relates to the constitution is arbitrable. User Thiago Canellas: Actually if you are proposing any changes to this. User Kevin Rose elaborates in the channel but it comes down to this: If this language we proposed is used as is nothing would be arbitrable except where agreed to between users. Token theft would not be arbitrable, a lost key would not be arbitrable, incorrect address used during a transfer would not be arbitrable. But this is not the purpose of our proposal. We’ve also written that same language but included ECAF so to enable all constitutional disputes on chain between token holders arbitrable. The community can decide what they want when it comes to that. The ECAF version of this language was not included in the proposal to avoid confusion. User Thiago Canellas: Thanks! But if you consider the constitution a Ricardian Article III define that ‘no property shall change hands without consent’ that would make theft arbitrable if this article is not changed, right? User Kevin Rose: Wouldn’t matter. You need a valid arbitration clause for something to be arbitrable. Without first defining the jurisdiction and set of RDR you won’t have a valid claim to arbitrate anything. It would be a dead article.
Ulex/Dispute:
User Joë Mckinney: I’ve been reading more about Ulex, an open source legal system. It was developed by Professor Tom W Bell to use existing best practices in international, private law for dispute resolution. I think it might be great to address dispute resolution problems. User Kevin Rose: I don’t see why individual couldn’t utilize this as their preferred solution of dispute resolution. As long as all three participant of the tribunal chosen/appointed are registered via {regarbitrator} and Ulex was named as {regforum} in their contract. https://medium.com/@aleksa_14911/gaps-to-be-bridged-why-eos-needs-ulex-38aa0964a694 User Joë Mckinney: Correct maybe a constitutional change wouldn’t be necessary, but it would certainly lower the transaction costs associated with arbitrators choosing from different bodies of law. User Kevin Rose: Sorry the caveat was, ‘I don’t see why people couldn’t utilize this based on our proposal’. https://medium.com/@eosnewyork/free-market-dispute-resolution-on-eos-identifying-arbitrators-arbitration-forums-on-chain-via-663bd8ad9c56
Users Samupaha and Kevin Rose discusst using a forum instead of ECAF and if that’s possible for a long time. It concludes in Kevin Rose saying that one would arbitrate twice if another forum is used. User Kevin Rose: To be honest, I’m lost at the point where ECAF expects the high court of France, or district appellate court of China somewhere, or some other body to submit a dispute for ECAFs judgment in order to enforce a court ruling.
Other:
User Elias shares: https://hackernoon.com/can-smart-contracts-replace-lawyers-604ae27693e8 and says that the first thing he thought of was EOSGov and arbitration. User Kevin Rose: This paper was helpful for me to develop an opinion about the shortcomings of smart contracts alone. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d9bf/0c9d82d0ffe44bb493c9b2f4ed41bafaf035.pdf