Remarks on EOS governance and BP ownership disclosure

in eos •  3 months ago

eostitanlogo_small.jpg

Following recent calls for “block producer compliance” made publicly by certain members of the EOS community, we would like to further expand EOS Titan’s position on the question of our ownership disclosure and compliance with the regproducer ricardian contract. We would also like to take this opportunity to make some remarks on the documents that purport to provide a foundation for EOS governance more generally.

We understand and support the intent behind some of the calls for block producer compliance, we welcome all good faith efforts by community members to actively examine these issues, and we share many of the concerns about malicious or fraudulent actors abusing the network incentive mechanisms that have been voiced by the community.

That being said, we also have concerns about the approach taken by certain community members who have examined, and commented on, the extent to which block producers and block producer candidates have maintained compliance with the express provisions of the regproducer ricardian contract.

In connection with our ownership disclosure, we wish to make clear that we regard our disclosure as stated as compliant with the express provisions of the regproducer ricardian contract.

We have come to this conclusion on the basis of the language used. The ownership disclosure specifically requires disclosure of beneficial ownership of “my company” above a threshold of 10% and all direct shareholders. As stated in our ownership disclosure document, EOS Titan is not currently structured as a company. Nor is it structured as any other form of legal person or other kind of collective entity, such as a partnership or an association. It genuinely is an ad hoc, informal alliance among like-minded individuals.

We note that although “my company” is not a defined term within the regproducer ricardian contract, there is no reasonable interpretation of that phrase that would include ad hoc collectives that have no internal structure and no shareholders.

As such, the concepts deployed in the ownership disclosure provision of the regproducer ricardian contract (i.e., “ultimate beneficial owners of my company”; “direct shareholders”) do not apply to EOS Titan in its current state, and we are therefore compliant with the express provisions of the contract.

We would like to add that there are currently no parties being considered for a 10% or higher ownership stake in EOS Titan should it be incorporated, nor are there any candidates considered to be ultimate beneficiaries of 10% or more of the revenues of EOS Titan, beyond the individuals presented on our website, and their respective fully-owned companies.

That being said, we nevertheless question the wisdom of calling for compliance with the letter of the regproducer ricardian contract, when the express text is so unclear as to make it difficult, if not impossible, to discern completely the intent of said contract. Moreover, to the extent that some intent can be made out, we regard the language of this ricardian contract as unnecessarily narrow.

By way of illustration, consider the following.

By following the express provisions of the regproducer ricardian contract regarding ownership disclosure, it would be very easy to conclude that the intent of the contract was that only corporations are eligible for block producer status. Such a limitation at the level of fundamental governance institutions such as block producers would introduce weakness into the governance structure of the EOS network.

We see no reason to limit a block producer’s structure to a “company”, for which the definition already varies between jurisdictions and is not defined either as part of the regproducer ricardian contract or in the context of the document currently in circulation that is being referred to as the “constitution”.

We believe experimentation and diversity with regard to the governance of block producers is more beneficial to the network, and will ultimately result in a more resilient, and censorship resistant platform. A block producer could potentially be an individual, a DAO, a dApp, an autonomous agent, a NGO, and potentially take many other forms and should not be constrained to a single type of ownership or operational structure.

The regproducer ricardian contract is not (and does not claim to be) a constitutional document. However, it is a key document intended to structure the operation and conduct of certain fundamental institutions of the EOS governance framework. In our view, the regproducer contract is therefore so fundamental that it deserves to be formulated with a degree of care similar to that one would use in drafting a constitution. By using such limiting language at this level, we are stifling innovation with respect to on-chain governance mechanisms. We also argue that by insisting on strict compliance with this point at this stage may force block producers to forfeit significant agility, adaptability and mobility in the light of the uneven regulatory environments and somewhat unpredictable stances adopted by various government agencies and regulators worldwide towards cryptocurrencies.

Supporting such a fundamental limitation would be in direct contradiction with our objective to help make EOS an anti-fragile and censorship-resistant system, which we stated as one of our fundamental core values.

With respect to the formulation of EOS governance frameworks more generally, we would further argue that drafting constitutional and other quasi-constitutional or fundamental documents is challenging in part because it is very difficult to create such structuring documents without introducing undesirable limitations.

In this connection, we think it is important to note that the documents currently included in the EOS-Mainnet Github governance repository have not been subjected to what can be considered a proper discussion and debate, were altered at the last minute prior to launch of the mainnet without a proper notice or review period, and have not yet received any form of on-chain stake-weighted validation or endorsement by token holders.

Moreover, many of the documents or provisions do not objectively meet the minimal quality standard one could reasonably expect from documents of such importance. We are skeptical of any governance approach that, at this early stage, attempts to rigorously enforce compliance with the provisions of the interim documents currently in circulation. To do so would be to act precipitously.

We plead for a more temperate and reserved approach, one that would be better aligned with the current level of implied legitimacy the documents have received at this early stage. In our view, these documents are in essence a proposal or, at best, what would be called in other contexts familiar to members of this community, a freshly submitted request for comment (RFC).

As such, we would like to make an appeal to the community, and suggest that these debates be taken on chain, by using the EOS Forum dapp smart contract or other mechanisms. We encourage stakeholders to take a position on the matter, and to express their views in the spirit of DPOS.

We also welcome further off-chain discussion with interested parties in our Telegram community channel:

https://t.me/eostitanBP

We invite voters sharing our core values and opinions to cast their vote for eostitanprod for block producer, or to vote through our proxy eostitanvote.

Vires in Numeris,

The EOS Titan team
https://eostitan.com

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Why are they trying to implement such draconian measures? Tell them to go fly a kite.

Great statement. Compliance is being ignored by some while others are fully committed to helping the community create standards and raise standards for block producer compliance.

I fully support the approach you guys have taken. I don't believe that a block producer should have to be a company, or corporation of any kind. A decentralized community that focuses on life and liberty shouldn't be forcing individuals or groups of like minded individuals to comply with the mostly ridiculous standards set forth by local governments.

We should be looking to create technical solutions to the compliance standards and only to prevent malicious behavior or negative impacts on the network.

I'm very excited to hear that this is your approach, and I look forward to watching you guys compete and thrive in this uncharted territory.

Sincerely,
The eoswatchdogs

https://t.me/eoswatchdogs

This governance issue looks incredibly messy. I wonder how this can be fixed?

I had no idea half of this was going on, nor had I given it much thought..which is my fault. Of course these kind of debates should be on-chain. Great post. I plan on getting much more involved.

You bring up a lot of very valid points. Most of EOS govenrnance happening right now was in our opinion drafted ad-hoc, prematurely, and often by people without the necessary grasp of the matter. They all meant well, but that doesn't make the cut, and causes more harm than good.

This we believe will change soon, as referendum contracts are developed, and much more scrutiny will be present when it comes to protection of the decentralized nature of EOS, which was recently taking a hit, at least conceptually.
We are also working pretty hard on these issues but decided to take a deep dive into the roots of the problem, rather than jump the gun and rush things.

Woo ho ho, this is hilarious. Too much vote buying and a day too soon. 200 will get you on trending for almost a day at 0.84. 600+ will keep you here a while.

@eostitan, @steemium, @bitcat, @steem.lol, @cutest, @transisto, @finprep. I think you understand.

@newsflash, I think I'm getting a downvote.

·

When promoting a 3 day old post $600 won't last a day.

·
·

Went from number 2 to number 6 in 24 hours. That's pretty 'smooth' for a 4 day post.

Dear Sir, I am a member of one of the EOS nodes: EOSRaychains. I’d like to introduce you our node and hopefully you can weigh and consider voting for us as you are an influential EOS proxy. EOSRaychains, whose founder is Wang Ruixi, RAM top holder, in consist of numerous early Bitcoin players. In the early period, EOS attracted our attention by its long-term technology value and we invested in it as a loyal believer and supporter emotionally. We also have been trying to be intensively involved in EOS ecosystem construction, support its prosperity with our technology and ecosystem harmony for the consistent growth of EOS main chain. Besides, we are dedicated to build and refine blockchain ecosystem and currently has developed Penguin Mainland, Hoo Wallet, Pow8 and BATPOOL. As a technology-oriented team, we didn’t pay much attention to super node voting. We sincerely and truly want to contribute to the success of EOS and try our best to shape the future of EOS. Thanks for your time.
https://steemit.com/bp/@eosraychain/eosraychain-eos-block-producer-candidate-report

Congratulations @eostitan! You have completed the following achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You got your First payout
Award for the total payout received

Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
SteemitBoard and the Veterans on Steemit - The First Community Badge.

Do you like SteemitBoard's project? Then Vote for its witness and get one more award!

EOS GOVERNANCE is very important , this is impacting this coin a lot , need some good news for this coin to turn over otherwise it will be lying in corners like other coins

@esotitan
Fully agree with the post.
There should be more debates and discussions in the community and amongst the stake holders and all draconian rules and stumbling block should be removed for good.
Thanks

Taking a look at the EOS price action on the daily chart, it’s been just supported at the 61% Fibonacci retracement level at around $8 while moving below a bearish Ichimoku cloud. We remain in a wait-and-see mode to discover whether this support can prevent the prices from moving lower to the next psychological level, which is $4.6. The important resistance levels are set at $10 and $12 respectively