(Summary from 12:00 October 17th till 12:00 October 18th)

NOTICE: WE ALSO POST OUR SUMMARIES ON: https://eosamsterdam.net/eos-telegram-summaries/

Constitution & Arbitration

User Chris Pelling asks if we can’t just make it a best practice for the dApps to specify the law jurisdiction in their Ricardian contracts. This way there wouldn’t need to be a single country’s law for the whole chain. User Jetse from EOS Amsterdam responds and says that they always could. We wouldn't want to put limits to the freedom to realize one's desired legal relationship. Please note that a lot of legal relationships are not governed by contract. The thief is not bound by a contract between him and his victim. Therefore the default Charter applies. The arbitrator ruling over the theft will have to rule using the charter and the applicable law that determines that theft is actually theft. There is no choice of law here that determines the applicable law. User nutela says asks the following: “That’s interesting, so who establishes the legal relationship? So the arbiter decides what the applicable law is right? Then he’s the judge when both parties ask him, when only one it’s a default judgement (theft)?”
User Thomas Cox answers this by saying that there is no procedural distinction that he can see between a theft and a legitimate contractual dispute where one side simply ignores the notice of arbitration and loses by default
User **Kevin **says the following: “As our system of governance scales we must identify the watershed moments that establish precedent for future decisions. This is especially important for keeping block producer authority in check. The pending Resource Exchange will serve as the perfect way to draw a limit on that authority as well as be the best candidate for the first successful referendum in the history of EOS”, you can read more on this here: https://medium.com/@eosnewyork/rex-needs-a-referendum-why-thats-good-for-eos-e1e5519b47b2
User nutela asks who establishes the legal relationships. User Jetse replies that the parties do. The charter applies to their relationship also. They may want to deviate from the charter but that cannot be detrimental to third parties rights. Typically the dApps will offer services to which their terms and conditions will apply. If they don't their legal relationship will, next to the rules in the charter, be established by the applicable law. That law will determine, e.g., how to legally qualify the dApp services and whether or not there are certain requirements in order to be compliant with that applicable law.

REX

User Sharif says that the issue with REX is that it distributes the RAM fees, should we introduce it and RAM starts going to crazy prices no one will vote to change it. Also, as the flow of fees into RAM account is controlled by BPs adding supply it seems like it is trying to solve one problem with tools from another box. User Kyle replies and says that the higher RAM fees will bring more tokens into the rental pool thus pushing down the price of renting CPU and bandwidth - it’s self adjusting in a way. One cost goes up the other goes down and it all evens out. User Ryan Bethem says that this is elegant in that way. However, Ryan worries that while it might help development (lower cost barrier), REX also has a centralizing effect on the chain itself via big money staking.

Other

User Khosi says the following: “Personally, I am quite cynical about how the current token holder cohort aligns its interest. It seems to me that the only deterrent that exists to friend/profiteer voting is the prospect of a contentious fork. We saw this just 2 weeks ago. What this token holder cohort seems to miss is that voting is a huge part of governance. If voting, and by extention governance, is wrong the chain will fork itself into non-existence. Currently, only a single whale is keeping the chain from forking”. User Sun Tzu says that there is a strong tension between long term benefit to the chain, and short term benefit to individuals or a a group of people. As long as the chain survives, the rational approach is to take the short term benefit.This is why WPS is necessary - so that most people can rationally play the short term benefit game without having to worry themselves about how to invest in something with low personal ROI but high chain ROI. Without that broad investment, the chain will slow down and stagnate. Then, the cartel approach will also dampen the chain. Because the money is being directed centrally, and the center that is directing only has limited decision bandwidth, not enough investment can be deployed. This is why e.g., the BPs are being leant on to invest in broad chain initiatives like WPS & referenda contract - because if you're too much of a whale, you can't direct your capital to chain benefit, and you're locked into aggregation not investment. Diversity is essential to shake it up because no one mind can direct it. We need entrepreneurs not aggregators.

EOS 요약 포털 메인 페이지: https://eosamsterdam.net/ko/eos-telegram-summaries/

Constitution & Arbitration

Chris Pelling은 dApp이 Ricardian 계약에서 법률 관할권을 지정하는 것이 가장 좋은 방법이 아닌지 묻습니다. 이 방법을 쓰면 전체 체인에 단일 국가의 법률이 있을 필요가 없습니다. EOS Amsterdam의 Jetse는 항상 그렇게 할 수 있다고 응답합니다: “우리는 자신이 원하는 법적 관계를 실현할 수있는 자유에 한계를 두기를 원하지 않습니다. 많은 법적 관계는 계약의 적용을받지 않습니다. 도둑은 그와 피의자의 간의 계약에 구속받지 않습니다. 따라서 이 경우 기본 헌장이 적용됩니다. 중재인은 도용에 대한 판결을 내리며, 도용 사실을 도용 한 것으로 판결하는 해당 법률을 적용해야합니다. 해당 법률을 결정하는 법은 없습니다.” nutela는 다음과 같이 묻습니다: "그래서 누가 법적 관계를 수립합니까? 그러면 중재인은 해당 법률을 결정합니까? 그렇다면 두 당사자가 요청하면 중재인은 판사가 되고, 아니면 도용을 기본 판결로 봅니까?"

Thomas Cox는 한 쪽에서 중재 통지를 무시하면 중재를 무조건 지는 도난과 합법적인 분쟁 사이에서 볼 수있는 절차상 구별이 없다고 답합니다.

Kevin Rose는 다음과 같이 말합니다. "우리의 거버넌스 체제가 확장됨에 따라 미래의 결정에 대한 선례를 확립하는 유역의 순간을 파악해야합니다. 이는 블록생산자의 권한을 유지하는데 특히 중요합니다. 보류중인 리소스 교환은 EOS 역사상 최초의 성공적인 투표에서 가장 좋은 후보가 될뿐만 아니라 권한에 대한 제한을 이끌어내는 완벽한 방법이 될 것입니다." https://medium.com/@eosnewyork/rex-need-a-referendum-why-thats-good-for-eos-e1e5519b47b2
nutela는 누가 법적 관계를 수립하는지 묻습니다. Jetse는 당사자가 수립한다고 응답합니다. 헌장은 또한 그들의 관계에도 적용됩니다. 그들은 헌장으로부터 벗어나고 싶어 할지도 모르지만 제 3 자의 권리에 해를 끼칠 수는 없습니다. 일반적으로 dApp은 이용 약관이 적용되는 서비스를 제공합니다. 그들이 법적인 관계를 갖지 않으면 헌장의 규정 옆에 해당 법률에 따라 설립됩니다. 이 법에 따라 dApp 서비스 자격을 합법적으로 부여하는 방법과 관련 법률을 준수하기 위해 특정 요구 사항이 결정됩니다.

REX

Sharif는 REX의 문제는 RAM 수수료를 배포한다는 것이고, RAM을 도입하고 나서 아무도 RAM의 가격을 통제하지 못하면 아무도 투표를 통해 이것을 고치지 않을 것 이라고 말합니다. 또한 RAM 계정으로의 수수료 흐름이 BP에 의해 제어되기 때문에 다른 상자의 도구로 한 가지 문제를 해결하려고하는 것처럼 보입니다. Kyle은 RAM 수수료가 높을수록 렌탈 풀에 더 많은 토큰이 생겨 CPU와 bandwidth 임대 가격이 내려가게 된다고 대답합니다. Ryan Bethem은 이 방법이 우아하다고 말합니다. 그러나 Ryan은 개발 (비용 장벽)에 도움이 될 수는 있지만 REX는 큰 비용 스테이킹을 통해 체인 자체에 중앙화 영향을 미치고 있다고 우려합니다.