EOS Amsterdam - EOS Telegram - EOS VOTER PROXIES Summary - Sep 22-23rd
Anna | EOS Tribe (eosTribe.io) starts with the question:
“Could the BPGovernance proxy provide the "quality" score you desire out of others with links to works that prove they are in fact the best pick for "EOD governance"? thanks!”
Kevin Rose - EOS New York answers her:
“We’re rewriting our voting philosophy beyond the scope of specific governance items which is why we’ve removed it. It will be re-added after it’s been rewritten and translated. Our evaluation is subjective with discussion. The criteria is that it’s unanimous amongst all managing participants. The grading score I’m criticizing is separate from the proxy group that is conducting the grading. I assume this because the BPs voted for by the proxy does not match their scores. And nothing is “in fact”. It’s all judgement calls. Our first round of voting was over the course of three days and included a number of different approaches to whittling it down. We each had lists, priorities, and projects we felt were valuable. We debated back and forth. Even with the submissions from BPs we’ve been receiving we haven’t found a way to reliably “score” anything. Tokenika built EOS Factory, EOS Tribe has designed the front of end half a dozen user tools. Which one is better? It’s all a discussion.”
Zane - @FreedomProxyEOS adds to him:
“It is hard to make a score in general. It is more along the lines of is the team focused on what we believe. Security, reputation, outreach, vision, etc.”
He then adds:
“I haven't attempted to make a score because a single effort/project could outweigh multiple projects from a different team.”
Kevin Rose - EOS New York answers:
“Just using the front end designs as an example, @eosanna. I know EOS Tribe does more than that.”
Zane - @FreedomProxyEOS
“Its discussion based with certain "check marks" to show the BP isnt lacking in basic areas like JSON.”
Anna | EOS Tribe (eosTribe.io) answers:
“It’s about synergy, UI/UX, trust, and consensus. We helped build the voting portal when there was none. We created a centered approach connecting things like the wps system with the Referendum and thought that out on a large scale. It is not just a front end design. It is for mass adoption and ease of use. So, what has Attic lab done for EOS governance? Go down the list, be honest. At some point, this must mean more to the leadership than making money. It is about a healthy community. Having the balls to stop toxicity based on principles and duty to the community.”
She then directed question to Kevin Rose:
“Also, nothing against EOS Factory, it looks like it will be awesome when it is done but what does it have to do with EOS governance exactly? This is more than a front end design @eosnewyork, have you ever read this? It is what we all have been working on for months.... a Referendum. A way to ratify the constitution, a way to vote.. you know "governance" -
https://steemit.com/eos/@eostribe/bringing-it-all-together-a-user-centered-approach-to-eos-voting
Do you remember voting for BPs after launch using this...
http://eosportal.io/chain/12/producers?
The center of these tools IS governance... voting, consensus and ratification. These tools and others like it are what EOS needs to be a self-governed blockchain.
Katie | @eosasia | myeoskit.com
To add context, this is the proxy list you are referring to, correct?
Kevin Rose - EOS New York answers Anna:
“Thank you for providing the info. Like I said above, we are expanding the scope of BP governance to include more than just governance.”
BlockchainKid introduces the point about the scoring system:
“All BPs should work on improving their own internal governance systems, obviously. But isn’t a voter proxy built around “good” governance for all BPs, one which is evaluated as operated by a BP, and one where the BP votes for themselves and is rewarded in more voting tokens if elected, a little bit of a conflict? Having BPs be the arbiters of “good” governance seems like it could be a slippery slope to me without proper independence.
Regarding scoring systems. Firstly, let me just say that there is no perfect approach (think we all agree on that), but yes, they are tricky and can imply greater precision than actually exists. This said, they can encourage more structured thought processes around certain items, and force the issue when it comes to ascribing “value” to tools. Sure, that involves some subjectivity, but so does discussion and judgment calls which can change daily. What’s most important is consistency and high directional accuracy, in my opinion. My experience is that scoring systems force you to go back and ask yourself, “why did I give that BP this score last time, and should I do it again” for every component (which can be a very broad set of things). Discussion and judgment calls, unless thoroughly documented, aren’t as good for this and may be more easily influenced by what’s fresh and top of mind, in my experience.
Just to clarify that my comments about BP voter proxies apply to all BP voter proxies, not any one in particular 😁 There are a lot of them out there now and I believe the majority are “good” and have good intentions. Bottom line: the fact that all kinds of EOS stakeholders (tokenholders and BPs) are thinking about governance and optimizing performance is a good thing and a positive step in the right direction, I think.”
A lot of users agree with the BlockchainKid and touch on the subject of xenophobia that exists in the chain.
Khosi (eosafricaone) Morafo eosAfrica writes about this:
“My thought is that the chain is currently xenophobic against non-Western and non-Eastern BPs. Bitfinex is the only large proxy/holder willing to do something about this. EOS Cannon has also started a competition that would help. Those two seem to understand the need for diversity. But yes, it is not looking good.”