You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Tokenika's take on sustainable EOS arbitration
You could argue that by agreeing to a constitution user agrees to ECAF. I think Dan has made this point somewhere and ECAF is definitely mentioned in a constitution. Both sides will always be EOS users, so both will have agreed to ECAF.
We argue that the construct itself is fundamentally flawed and will not scale. A blockchain police, imposed by the constitution or otherwise can only operate within an extremely limited scope if it is to be invoked unilaterally. Otherwise, we're importing the entire legal system onto the blockchain, and at this point, we see this as slightly delusional, due to the sheer complexity and sheer mass of the task.
We think it is much wiser to rewind the blockchain history of last 4-5 years, map out the most disturbing and loss generating events (heavy hacks, Ethereum DAO etc), and have the ECAF in place to address these. Not to try to serve everyone, including small investors that were phished, or have legal disputes/claims against others, rightfully or not. In our eyes this is already generating a massive dispute in the community, as the source of authority is questionable, the executive power is with the BP's (in DPOS by default), and everything becomes a bit of a castle in the sand, even if propelled by big ideas.