EOS Amsterdam - EOS Gov Telegram Channel summary August 8 - August 9 2018/电报总结 8月8日-8月9日

(Summary from 12:00 August 8th till 12:00 August 9th)

Block Producers

User Emma says that the rule banning vote buying needs to be reviewed and qualified. Whales, institutional players, and exchanges vote for BPs in return for some benefits. The idea that holders cannot be responsibly organized to use their votes to derive similar benefits is unfair. This is one area where incentives aren't aligned. With such an arrangement, voters will become more engaged and BPs more accountable. User Kevin Rose responds by asking if Emma has any proof of this. He heard revenue-sharing agreements between BPs is the reality instead.

EOS Alliance

Sun Tzu says the following regarding EOS Alliance after several people post questions: “EOS Alliance isn't as yet in the mode where it can tackle policy and governance questions head-on. It's still getting its people, structure and seed funding in place. But we are looking at the big questions, and it might be that WPS will become an early focal point. That said, the consensus is that Alliance brings together the communicators to air and share their opinions, it itself does not have a formal opinion unless pushed.” User Thomas Cox says he is confident that the Alliance will accept zero decision making power or control over the WPS mechanism. The community can, and perhaps should, set up a purpose-built mechanism via referendum to manage the WPS. The Alliance currently intends to host conversations about the WPS, to interview WPS working groups, and to help facilitate the self-organization process of the community.

User Bluejays asks if the Alliance will set the agenda regarding ‘host conversations’ and if they will also control this conversation. User Thomas Cox replies as follows: “Superb question. The good facilitator helps the attendees set the agenda, as we did at the Unconference. If the Alliance tries to steer the conversation or control it by manipulating the agenda, it will (deservedly) lose its legitimacy. I won't permit that.”

User Kyle joins the discussion and says that Bluejays is right, soft power can be used in numerous ways, you may not steer the agenda, you may simply not invite the voices of people with opposing thoughts onto the stage to have the debate in the first place. This could be seen as a massive political tool. User Sun Tzu replies to Bluejays and notes that those who invite also have the power to un-invite the opposition and to steer using their superior resources. This always exists in any community. Fundamentally, the conversation is open. There are already long-standing 2 telegram groups on WPS. The bottom line is the referenda. The ability to fork, the ability to communicate are unparalleled in this community. User Sun Tzu ends the argument with the following:

“I'd encourage people to contribute to the convo and not see everything as "decentralisation is my hammer." We are in a battle of decentralising that which is too centralised, and we likely have to accept some compromises to move forward.”

节点人

用户艾玛说，禁止投票购买的规定需要被审查和认证。大佬们，机构参与者和交易所投票支持BP，以换取一些好处。持有人不能负责任地组织使用他们的投票来获得类似的利益那这是不公平的。这是就是动机不一致的原因。通过这样的安排，选民将变得更加投入，BP会更加负责任。用户Kevin Rose通过询问Emma是否有任何证据来回应。他听说BP之间的收入分享协议已经是事实。

EOS联盟

对于几个人提出的关于EOS联盟问题，Sun Tzu回应说：“EOS联盟尚未处于可以正面解决政策和治理问题的模式。它还在努力使人员，结构和种子资金到位。但我们正在探究一些重大问题，而WPS很可能会成为早期的焦点。也就是说，联盟将传播者聚集在一起并分享他们的意见这是大家公认的，除非在被跟进，否则它本身没有正式的意见。“用户Thomas Cox说他相信对于WPS机制联盟将接受零决策权或控制权。社区也许可以通过公民投票来建立一个为特定目的建造管理WPS的机制。该联盟目前打算当关于WPS的对话的东道主，采访WPS工作组，并帮助促进社区的自组织过程。

用户Bluejays询问联盟是否会设置有关“主持人对话”的议程，以及他们是否也将控制此对话。用户Thomas Cox回复如下：“超赞的问题。正如我们在Unconference所做的那样，优秀的的协助人会帮助参会者制定议程。如果联盟试图通过操纵议程来主导谈话或控制它，它将（自食其果）失去其合法性。我不会允许的。“

用户Kyle加入讨论并说Bluejays是对的，软权力可以用于多种方式，你可能无法操控议程，你可能一开始就不邀请那些想法跟你背道而驰的人进入。这可以被视为一种巨大的政治工具。用户Sun Tzu回复Bluejays并指出，那些邀请人可以利用其优势取消观念有冲突的被邀人。这种现象始终存在于任何社区中。从根本上说，谈话是开放的。 WPS上已有2个电报组。底线是公投。分叉的能力，沟通能力在这个社区是无与伦比的。用户Sun Tzu结束以下论点：

“我提倡大家加入更多的对话而不是将去中心化视为我的榔头。”因为全力太过集中所以我们正在努力进行权力下放，我们很有可能需要做出让步从继续前进。 “