Why 'Article XV: Property Rights' is a great addition to the EOS constitution?

in eos •  5 months ago


Eh, Article XV What???

The Article XV proposes that if an account (the account name like @tanishqyeverma on Steemit) is found inactive for 3 years, the community may auction the account and distributes the proceeds from it.

A Member is automatically released from all
revocable obligations under this Constitution
3 years after the last transaction signed by
that Member is incorporated into the blockchain.
After 3 years of inactivity an account ***may*** be 
put up for auction and the proceeds
distributed to all Members according to 
the system contract provisions than in the
effect for such redistribution.

May: 3 years is a long period and we assume many things will be different in next three years, we could have identification system or nominee function on EOS, one could never know where the technology will take us!

This has raised a lot of eyebrows among the community members mainly because of few mentioned reasons -

  1. It's the users property and one doesn't have the right to auction it!
  2. What happens if someone met with an accident and goes in the comma for 5 years and once he gets back into senses wants his tokens and account back?
  3. What if someone has invested long term and cause of any unknown reasons doesn't check the account for 3 years?
  4. What if someone's grandfather invested in EOS as a gift to his grandchild and he dies leaving the private key with the kid who isn't smart enough to sign the transactions?

We will come back to the questions later, but first, let's try to know why we have such an article in the constitution and what does it trying to achieve?

An account used by an EOSian will use the tokens to use the services of the blockchain. That will further use the resources like name, bandwidth and CPU. I have tried to break down few points which the article is trying to cover.

Importance of an Account - Let's just assume we have a dApp like STEEMIT on EOS, we all know how Steem functions and how vested Steem in one account could increase one's influence on the platform. Let's say a highly reputed account '@X' with a lot of SP is lying inactive for like 3 years. Won't someone would love to buy that account and pay the price for it which could benefit the community grow?

Like vested Steem power one account on EOS may be enjoying special privileges (maybe cause of smart contracts), lucky numbers, names (like being a fan I would be ready to pay a huge amount for taking the account name @bytemaster7).

Name Squatting- Different dApplications and users using the dApps will create accounts by different names. Some names could have intrinsic value which could increase with time. If you buy @ceo today on EOS and forgets the key, someone may be willing to a more value in future which could indirectly help the community.

Resources - The bandwidth, ram and CPU are allocated to every account holder based on the EOS one have in his wallet. For getting new users on the platform the dapps will delegate some token (much like STEEMIT), to let users start using the service.

If the dApps could not retain the new users, that would be wasting network resources like Bandwidth, RAM and usernames.

If in case a dApp is an influence marketing account handled by a single person who vacates/dies, what the community should do? Will the account and token always remain the property of him or could community auction it and use the funds.

Suppose, we have a million/billion user using the Blockchain if like fb many people created spam account in the beginning, if those accounts are inactive and still using RAM, that would amount to a lot of network resources going waste and will even shoot the prices of RAM up.

Then factors such as free airdrops i.e free distribution of token for the active members of the community.

Does signing any transaction or voting will consider the account active?

According to @dan, yes any account which is signing any transaction even like voting or transfer will be deemed to be active.

What about the users who are delegating a part of EOS to any dapplication?

They will be considered dormant, one is needed to sign a transaction in a period of three years. An account delegating EOS to other dapp and not signing the transaction to redeem the interest would be considered dormant.

What about the auto bots like STEEMAUTO??

As per @dan, if one is paying for the services to keep the account active than that's fine. Any transaction signed by any bot will take into account as active.

Though I disagree as no one would even pay any fees to someone for maintaining the bots, this could be done by a new developer to get traction or gain followers.

I feel if it's once in the 3-year thing, people could sign one unique transaction which could approve the account active. Maybe using something like 'Google Authenticator' as the second layer of approval to keep the Bots away. Or a link sent to the user once in three years (security remains an issue).

It is still debatable - if you take into account the trust factor on such bot services, the similarity in the transaction, at what time we could take the account dormant if the transaction is just signed by bots.

Lease tokens instead of deleting accounts?

It is just looking at the Resource allocation leaving the rest cases.

I also feel that would be against article V that state and I quote:

The Members do not authorize anyone to hold assets, borrow, nor contract on behalf of EOS token holders collectively. This blockchain has no owners, managers or fiduciaries.

Could we delete the accounts and just keep the wallets?

As per developer portal,

There is no inherent relationship between accounts and wallets. Accounts do not know about wallets, and vice versa

I think one will be able to retain the public key which in exchange could hold the off-chain property* and maybe the tokens as well. The wallet won't be able to use the network resources like account names, ram, bandwidth or CPU.

*It is possible to write a contract that checks signatures of keys before approving transfers and the assets wouldn't be associated with the account in question. - @Dan

Currently, we just have a Public key and private key and are not using the resources, maybe deletion of one's account will bring the user into the current state.

Moreover, the article uses the term Account which includes the wallet as well is still unclear.

Shouldn't the arbitrators decide what the community should do with the account?

@dan has addressed the issue well in one of his posts here.

Coming back to the questions raised by many members in the community -

It isn't just about the token and 3 years is very long period we may have many new features like notification and nomination system to safeguard one's property on the blockchain. Additionally, we soon may have identification contract as well. If someone's Grandpaa dies, someone gets in the coma or invest long term they could safeguard token using insurance dapp or banking contract keeping the token safe.


The article XV is a great proposal which will take care of community and blockchain economics, resources and name squatting itself. The auctioned accounts and resources will further be reused by the community in an efficient manner.

As many things are not so clear about the future and EOS is still in developing stage and the use of 'may' takes that into account, we need to enforce the article from the beginning itself. The educated minority of today will certainly help the coming majority to know about this article is we introduce it now!

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:  

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

What if a person isn't aware about this new?


There are many laws in one country is a citizen well aware of every law? Could someone go against the law and say 'hey I wasn't aware of the law', will he would be spared?

Superb summary, of the ongoing controversy. It's a very ideological topic, but i think the way this issue is addressed by article 15 is very productive. Given the many and low level requirements for an account to be considered to be active, i don't see that this article would have a broad scale impact on EOS token holders. 3 years is a long period of time for remaining inactive, and if there were a lot of similar cases, it might unnecessarily clutter the network.


Thank you @conceptskip :). Yes and I wish we had something similar on STEEM as well!

Very cognitive information!