This is the 5th part of a series to critically asses the EOS project. Here are the preceding articles:
Part 3 - Is the EOS dev infrastructure solid?
Part 4 - Lessons learned from Steemit?

Another of this obscure terms popping up around EOS is that of a blockchain constitution. This sounds like something very fundamental, and it makes one of think of those major civilisatory achievements reached throughout centuries past.

As it turned out in the last article in this series, Steem as the proof of concept technology for EOS, manages a lot of governance issues much better than all other blockchains, as the DPOS system has something like an implicit government structure built into it already, but still there remain centrifugal forces between investors (who intend to make money out of their investment) )and content creators (who want to have their originality rewarded, without having necessarily a huge stake in steem). Will the envisioned EOS constitution be able to solve this?

Actually this article is not addressing a weakness of EOS but rather one of it's maybe boldest promises and something that could be really groundbreaking.

EOS, the crypto that comes with a constitution?

First of all there is no EOS consitution at the moment, not even a draft. This is something Thomas Cox of EOS.io must currently be really busy on. He announced the first version for the beginning of this week, but understandably, a constitution dealing with very far reaching things, needs time to take shape.
What we have by now are these:
Governance Chapter of the EOS Whitepaper
Example Draft Constitution by Dan
Design principles of the first draft constitution by Thomas Cox
EOSRad.io - Q&A with Thomas Cox <-- This is one of the most important pieces of information, if you want to understand what EOS is about. In case you are short on time, skip all the gibberish and just listen and read Thomas Cox!

In case you are still here, I'll try to briefly summarize what the constitution according to the above sources is supposed to accomplish:
It is the focal part of EOS governance, which again is described as "consensus on subjective matters [...] that cannot be captured entirely by software algorithms"

The consitution is to address the following:

It will be a "peer to peer service agreement" or "binding contract established between all EOS users". So basically the Constitution would become applicable to all EOS holders and users.

It describes basic design principles encompassing the blockchain, voting mechanism via staking, the currency (coin) etc. basically how we assume EOS will operate at the start.

It defines intervention into the blockchain: Freezing of accounts and smart contracts as well as updates to the blockchain: Here the important part, is that the code is not seen as law. Instead in case of issues there will be an examination of a contract for bugs, if it's caught in a loop or has been hacked. In all instances, block producers have the authority to freeze accounts and make changes to the code, if works not in accordance with the intention of the contract, which is held more important then the code. So forget about "code is law" etc. If something is seen as failing it might be changed. Prerequisite for that is, that there is a majority vote (15 of 21 BPs).

Enforcement and Arbitration If there is any dispute between users, this will settled by arbitration, according to Thomas Cox (TC)in the Q&A video this will be handled by individuals who act as arbitrators.

Changing of the Constitution The constitution itself can be amended any time by majority vote of token holders. Every user is basically allowed to propose constitution changes. So the constitution itself can develop.

This all sounds pretty neat, yet as the constitution intends to regulate matters beyond the blockchain, how can that become binding inside the blockchain?

So how is that constitution supposed to be implemented?

This was also answered by TC in the Q&A session, basically he says, that for any EOS holder to be able to perform their first transaction, they will need to give their consent to the current version of the constitution, otherwise you just can't use EOS.
Dan points this out as fulfilling his prerequisit of a non-violent jurisdiction.

Aside that, a reference to the constitution would also be a part of eachs signature of each transaction, so although the constitution is something external to the blockchain, you will still not be able to escape or somehow ignore it as a EOS user.

As described by TC in his bios article, the mainnet chain will launch with an initial constitution, provided by EOS.io, but immediately after the blockchain establishment there would be a vote on proposed constitution(s), which would be accepted after a majority vote has been locked in for 15 days.
Gosh, the mainnet launch will really be a turbulent time!

Arbitration - A tectonic shift in international jurisdiction?

Maybe even more important, is enforcement: by signing the constitution you would also accept arbitration by EOS own arbitration rules. Again, this is something TC explains in the Q&A video (if you haven't watched it yet, make sure to bookmark it now so that you dont forget to do that later): There will be arbitrators that are appointed (somehow), and consult each party in a dispute, based on that, they will do their ruling, which is independent (especially not depending on block producers) or anything, and the loosing party in the case will have to pay the fees.

Now here comes the mind-boggling part: Apparently, an agreement for arbitration is protected by a bunch of international conventions already, and its rulings are recognised and legally binding in the most states of the world.

This would actually establish a new layer of international business jurisdiction, automatically recognised and enforcable world wide.
IF EOS will turn out to be one of the - or even THE major blockchain, the whole platform together with dapps built on it will follow this set of rulings. Basically there will be a legally binding regulatory body established a month before G20 will assess their first draft. This is beyond huge!

The fun aspect with arbitration could also be, since there will be renumerated arbitrators, with time, a crypto legal elite will develop, that we love just as much as we do the offchain ones.

A question remains of course, on what principles will they base their rulings (i can imagine a set of precedent verdicts like "the blockchain vs. john doe from 2019").... And how will an arbitrator be appointed. It might be wise to have some separation of power, and a system of checks of balances needs to develop. Maybe the upcoming draft constitution handles that already. Maybe it will develop via amendments. Who knows....

Justice for all.. Likely not in census suffrage?

Talking about such things as blockchain constitution and voting, our idealistic hearts might beat faster, but it's critical not to forget, that all the voting is dependent on ones stake. So there is a realistic chance that it's the whales that will control the progress of the EOS constitution. This will be even more easy to do with a voting system built in into the system, since this way everything that makes out EOS could be altered.

According to a recent survey the top 250 accounts are holding 37% of available tokens, out of which 10% is held by block.one, who already announced, they will play an active part in voting.

This is far from a controlling shares, but it's clear that decisions will be done by the few rather than the majority, but this might still be okay, because after all this is a for-profit business orientated platform, so it should operate like a stock company, rather than a democracy. Or as we are speaking in political terms, would it be like the ancient Roman Republic? The processes are transparent but decisions are made by an elite class.

Source

Conclusion

In the end, it will lie with the whales, to provide the minnows with bread and circuses, this is to make the EOS platform usable, entertaining and beneficial for ordinary users.
If that doesn't work out, people might just leave for other platforms and solutions, and there are enough contestants around. The issues with Steem, certainly arise from the fact, that it has a monopoly with currently being the only social network on-chain. But that as well will change rapidly.

The really relevant and ground-breaking thing will be, that there will be a process in place that allows to change the rules and resolve disputes in a transparent and agreed upon manner. This way deadlocks like we know from Bitcoin, or the recent Ethereum debate, will be off the table from the beginning. The provisions might not always be at the cutting-edge of justness, but it will allow the platform to adapt in an ever rapidly changing world and develop with what we learn from the mechanisms in place.

So to conclude, the constitution aspect of EOS is maybe it's most striking feature, much will depend on how it's structured at the beginning, and how it will be transformed by the community.
Let's see what Thomas Cox will surprise us with, and then continue our discussion.

The information provided here sums up the results of my own - finite - research. If you've found this piece interesting or useful, please up-vote and resteem and help spread the word. If you have spotted any addition, or if you see things differently, please throw in your thoughts and comments! I am always happy to discuss and learn!

EOS - Peeking under the hood - Series:
Part 1 - Yet another ico?
Part 2 - How is the EOS blockchain established?
Part 3 - Is the EOS infrastructure solid?
Part 4 - Lessons learned from Steemit?
Part 5 - A platform constitution, how does that work? <-- YOU ARE HERE
Final Part - Summary & Outlook -- Coming soon