Saturday, September 29, 2018

Sharif Bouktila - eosDublin asks the question:

“Is anyone calculating a metric of representation of stake among the elected BPs publically? By this I mean, each token is tied to an account which could have 0-21 of its voted-for BPs in the elected set, so that token would have something like a value of 0-21 tied to it or maybe even binary and we could analyse that as a measure of whether that stake has representation in the governance of the chain. It`s not hard to get but, I don't want to duplicate efforts. Bart from B.1 are looking to see is anyone currently working on a metric to work out if accounts are voting for enough BPs. They are probably looking to build something for REX , but could be anything.”

Raman Bindlish - Investing with a difference answers:

Basically, a weight of each token in an account that is deciding the elected BPs. Does not make sense to use it for REX as that would mean people only vote for BPs who are likely to make it to top 21. And this consolidates the top 21 even more. Must be for some other metric.

Douglas Horn | Telos also gives an answer:
“Inverse-weighted voting is an option.”

Ben Mason asks:

“May I ask if there is a proxy out there that targets the best BPs by performance that can be determined by known facts? If there isn’t, could it be possible that such a proxy might get a lot of support? Might that support ensure over the long term that there was a considerable and sustained pressure on BPs, regardless of possible background collusion....actually do the job? The proxy rules and objectives could be laid out for all to see and for instance could include that… The initial selection will be based purely on x, y and z performance indicators and will start from the top (supported BPs first) and work down the list, skipping any that don’t meet the standards, until 30 are selected. As soon as a performance or compliance failure occurs (regardless of the cause) the votes are revoked and allocated to the next compliant BP. The aim would be to take out the politics and also make voting “well” more accessible to the voters out there. I realise that there are BPs out there adding great value all over the place, but the primary responsibility should come first. The question would be, what to include in the proxy rules? I think it should be as simple and easily assessed list as possible.”

BlockchainKid answers him:

“Defining “performance” is the challenge here.
I’ll be setting up a proxy based on the scoring methodology I’ve created which evaluates BPs based on governance and the development of value add tools. It should be live next week. I’m trying to make the scoring as objectively quantifiable as possible, but almost all scoring systems include an element of subjectivity. Especially when “value” creeps into the equation. I’ve looked into technical performance measures quite a bit. They’re just so riddled with complications at the moment that I don’t think it’s reasonable to use them as an indicator of “good” and “bad” performance. Although think this could change over time.”

Announcements:

Yves La Rose - EOS Nation:

“EOS Nation can no longer be confident that the current design and plan of what is known as ECAF is what is best for the long-term health and growth of the EOS ecosystem and that there are other innovative ways of securing property which should be explored and given consideration.

DPOS in Action | EOS Nation | Position Evolves Based on Community Feedback”

“Are you proposing something to fill the void of ecaf? I don’t see how you can nullify ecaf without a replacement? What would happen to current ecaf cases, compromised accounts/tokens, and future issues that may come up?”.

Yves replies: “I am speaking with Moti next Tuesday. This will be the main subject on the agenda. I can't nullify ECAF, that's for them to determine.”

Sunday, September 30, 2018

Raman Bindlish - Investing with a difference replies to the question by Ben Mason about proxy metrics:

“If you focus on a metric, that metric becomes the focus. I think BPs are delegated the responsibility to represent the whole community and they should be rated for much more than just running the network. While running node efficiently is a priority, that is a combined responsbility. That should not be used to distinguish for voting. You do not want people to build proprietary performance improvements, they should be for all to share. Greymass was fastest when CPU test came along and they shared their knowledge to help others to improve. This is what we want in BPs.”

Samupaha regarding the previous announcement by [Yves La Rose - EOS Nation]:

“Do you want to explain this a little bit more? I've seen how some people have expressed their support, but I really don't understand why. I thought it was horrible text. Nothing thoughtful, only vague blaming without any concrete steps to make things better. Just opinions without any logical reasoning or facts to support them.

There are some really big problems there. First of all, ECAF can't just step down. They are doing the job what the community has asked them to do. The community has set themselves certain rules (the constitution) and asked ECAF to be the judge in a case of a member of the community breaks some of those rules.

ECAF can't just stop doing it's job because somebody demands it on the internet. If the community doesn't want to use ECAF's services anymore, there needs to be an official expression of the community's will. That means a referendum. No other way is possible.

ECAF is independent and needs to stay that way. It can't be influenced by other people, whether it is a loud mob in social media or a whale offering money. The relationship between the community and ECAF can be only changed via referendum.

So, now we have a BP who is openly trying to pressure ECAF to lose its independence and accept completely unofficial orders from random people on the internet just because they claim to represent the community. That is a very serious act. Especially when this BP is proposing that ECAF should step down. It has huge implications for everything.

What does it mean to ECAF step down? Then there would be nobody to decide if somebody acted against the constitution. If no judgement can be done, then there won't be any enforcement. Without enforcement, the whole contract is practically invalid.

The contract in this case is the constitution, which is the common set of rules everyone in the community. Trying to seriously harm the community's ability to enforce its own rules could be seen as a serious attack against the community.

But so far I haven't seen any shitstorm or other strong reactions coming. Would anybody mind to explain what is actually going on?”

Aneta - eosnetworkxx proxy replies him:

“I simply expressed my happiness for Yves changing his mind about the need for the ECAF. I think it was a very thoughtful decision because changing his stance from a true supporter of ECAF to the opposition must have been really hard and thought of. I wouldn’t be so picky with the words he used as “stepping down”. I understand these words as the call to ECAF to accept that the model of the constitution with the base layer arb has failed. Obviously it will be the voters to decide but if the cabal thing is true then maybe the voters won’t have so much say after all and what will be chosen won’t reflect their will... That’s why we need honest BPs to step in and voice their stance about the cabal and about the v1 being inefficient at preventing cartel’s formation. This is my understanding of Yves’ words but only him knows what he meant”

Samupaha says:

“I wouldn’t be so picky with the words he used as “stepping down”. I understand these words as the call to ECAF to accept that the model of the constitution with the base layer arb has failed.

The one and only way ECAF can accept this is through a referendum. Expressing this opinion in any other way is invalid and should be considered as objectionable behavior. The community's will is the constitution. If there is no change in the constitution, ECAF doesn't have any reason to expect that the community's opinion has changed. Pressuring ECAF to act otherwise is comparable to blackmailing and bribing.

Obviously it will be the voters to decide but if the cabal thing is true then maybe the voters won’t have so much say after all and what will be chosen won’t reflect their will...

Then the right answer is fork.

That’s why we need honest BPs to step in and voice their stance about the cabal and about the v1 being inefficient at preventing cartel’s formation.

This doesn't make any sense. If the constitution is thrown to the trash can, then there is nothing, not even a theoretical possibility, to counter any cartel. It's the opposite, it's giving the full freedom to BPs to form cartels.

And even if this is only about cartel forming, it doesn't make any sense to blame ECAF for that. ECAF does only what the community asks it to do. ECAF resolves disputes that arise from the constitution. If the rules are not optimal to prevent cartels, then ECAF can't do anything about it. It's the community that must change the rules, because they are community's rules, not ECAF's.”

ECAF does what the community wants. If community wants to remove an arbitrator, why wouldn't ECAF comply (assuming it's done properly by voting)? If needed, we can even put it into our constitution. It's our constitution so we can put whatever we want in there.

Was ecaf able to solve the stoke key disputes, scams etc? How many cases did they solve so far? Are they efficient? Are they transparent?

What would you expect from an organization that runs part-time unpaid volunteers? On a completely new system where they had to start from nothing? With a community that demands perfection from them?

V1 is unenforceable in many ways

This gets said a lot nowadays but nobody explains what they actually mean by it. I claim that everything is enforceable. There are no mechanisms that prevent enforcing the rules. If there is something which truly blocks enforcing some rules, then we should identify that and remove it so that the enforcement can happen. Or alternatively, remove certain articles from the constitution which are too difficult to enforce.

and it’s too subjective.

This is also very vague claim – and very subjective, might I say. These kind of claims should be analyzed fully so we can see how exactly certain articles are subjective and what we can do about them.

There are ways to counter this. For example, the community could create guidelines for ECAF how they should interpret the articles in the constitution and what kind of resolutions would be preferred when somebody acts against the constitution.

The reason why I want to have this discussion is to go to the root causes of our problems. If we just throw away what we have now without properly analyzing it, there will be very high risk that the next constitution will be faulty, too.”

Announcements:

Katie | @eosasia | myeoskit.com

Congratulations to the ALOHA team for being ranked as the number one BP value provider on the EOS mainnet by the community re this report by @controllinghand

EOS Value Add Matrix now ranked by star votes.

Douglas Horn | Telos makes an announcemnt:

“We have our next vote on Oct. 17th. I expect that we will have a strong likelihood of launching then.”