EOS Amsterdam – EOS Gov Telegram Channel Summary October 7 – October 8 2018
(Summary from 12:00 October 7th till 12:00 October 8th)
Opponents:
User Jetse Sprey (EOS – Amsterdam) replies to Todor from the day before (talking about the biggest opponents to the system): Well put and very true. Historically it compares to the bitter fights between positivist (only the law and nothing more) and those that believe in natural laws. The latter won. It makes sense. Sometimes the law isn’t just and should be corrected.
User Sun Tzu also replied to Todor: Yes, possibly. What do people think? Are the biggest opponents of the governed Blockchain those that accept and prefer cartels?
Paid Positions:
User Jem replies to Adrianna Mendez from the day before: The number of paid positions depends very strongly on the overall distribution of votes. At some point, we had less than 35 paid positions. User Kevin Rose: It’s worth noting that it will naturally increase over time as well. The minimum payout for a standby is not a percentage but a hard number of 100 EOS. If votes stay reasonably distributed we will see standbys increase steadily over time. User Adrianna Mendez: So you think it’s a good idea to introduce paid position term limits? Maybe something like 7days on 3 off?
Whistleblower Program:
User BlockchainKid replies to Bob_by Bsh: Thanks. I think a whistleblower program would be most effective at combatting collusion that has been going on for a sustained period of time. User Kevin Rose: Are you proposing some kind of authority or ability to enforce in the Whisper proposal? User BlockchainKid: I think this could be more formally implemented by gathering support within the community from key stakeholders, like BPs support. Or some kind of non-binding vote for or against it. I don’t think there has to be an authority to enforce it, though.
Users Sun Tzu and Todor discuss Whistleblowers for a while.
ECAF Arbitrators:
User Kevin Rose: ECAF arbitrators are meant to be elected by the token-holders. In some governance systems, the judiciaries are elected by the elected legislative bodies. Who can provide a compelling reason why BPs don’t elect them? Is one better than the other (token holder vs BP electing them)?
User Bob_by Bsh: I agree with you it will have exact same results and make things even simples. (he then explains what he thinks)
User Adrianna Mendez: Because the BPs change, and we haven’t figured out how to keep multiple top 21 positions from being claimed. I have a problem with allowing that to happen with elected legislative bodies as well. There is a game theory issue currently. If BPs in the top 21 are not fully disclosed we have no way of knowing if a single entity is taking up more than one spot (cartelizing) I don’t want the power over arbitrator election passed to that system until we figure out a solution. User Kevin Rose: Arbitrators are meant to be elected by token holders now. They’re straight up anonymous. What’s the difference? User Adrianna Mendez: It just seems like too much power for BPs, therefore creating more incentive to attempt taking more than one spot in the top 21. I also feel BPs have enough responsibilities, we should be encouraging the community to privatize solutions not setting up our own. I personally feel the next step is to create insight committees and charters around major arbitration subjects like ‘Finance’ held by CPAs. We really should be separating arbitration into a House of Commons and House of Lords as well, to better help represent the retail holder vs. the large bag holder.
User Josh Kauffman: Do we vote for a BP based on their ability to perform the task at hand (producing blocks and securing the network)? Or do we now vote on their ability to do that AND choose fair and just arbitrators? I see these as two very different things.
User Sun Tzu: BPs will stack the forum with people who are friendly to BPs.
User Jetse Sprey (EOS – Amsterdam): I will say both being elected by the token holders and by BPs are bad. Judges and arbitrators should not be elected but appointed. They should serve justice. Justice is blind. That doesn’t go very well with an election in which they will have to take sides. Arbitrations often work with lists. The arbitration provider ensures a large number of arbitrators on that list and the parties pick one. Voting here has absolutely no added value. Which means that an arbitration provider will need a lot of arbitrators.
Other:
User Achilles posted the RDR Chinese version and the fee schedule of ECAF. He translated all those by himself. https://ecaf.io/governance
_________________________________________________________________________________________________