Today on April 12, 2019, we are glad to announce the EOS mainnet’s constitution was changed from the interim version to the new EOS User Agreement (EUA), authored mainly by EOS New York and with lots of community input. EOS Canada celebrates this governance milestone and hope you do as well.
The EUA Clarifies What Has Always Existed
The EOS User Agreement should not be seen as new rules, rather just as a clarification for what has always existed. Within the EOSIO source code that was put out by Block.one existed one global feature that had the ability to affect every aspect of the chain, 15 of 21 Block Producers can approve a change on the network.
Some feared that this could be seen as a wide open attack vector. But this mentality completely ignores the fact that it is the token holder community who gets to decide which Block Producers make up those 21 Block Producers at any given moment. This form of one-token-one-vote representation allows those with the most at stake to ensure the safety and security of their holdings by carefully considering whom they choose to operate the network.
As the teams with the greatest in-depth knowledge of all things EOSIO, the token holder community often looks to the Block Producer community for guidance, education, and opinions. As a Delegated Proof of Stake consensus mechanism, those same token holders are delegating their authority over the network to the Block Producers for whom they vote.
With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility
One of the most powerful features of blockchain is that everything is public, known, and verifiable. As highly visible entities, Block Producers know that they must make carefully weighted decisions, utilizing their intense understanding of the ecosystem as a whole.
We had recently published a blog post outlining our thinking and reasoning for why we had not voted for any of the referendums on chain up till that point. Now, with this change of Constitution, we are taking this opportunity to announce our stance on a few of the more popular referendums.
Also, going forward, whenever we make any votes on a referendum, we will always include some form of explanation on-chain for our choice. After all, that was why we included the
vote_json field when we wrote the
eosio.forum contract for the community.
EOS Canada votes YES for this referendum.
- It clearly lays out the needed next steps should it pass
- We believe that it is a net positive for the community as it will encourage users to become more engaged with their tokens/resources thanks to the direct incentivization
- Encourages Block Producer voting through the vote threshold to allow participation
- We have not heard any negative reactions to the idea
EOS Canada votes ABSTAIN for this referendum.
- The proposal is not worded in a way that allows for a clear path forward should the proposal be passed (The title asks to Delete ECAF, while the content asks whether ‘key switching orders should rely on 15 of 21 Block Producer multisignature’). We believe that if any major change should occur on the chain, that every single voter/Block Producer would have a very clear idea of what will be changed/how it will be changed/what the exact outcome will be.
- We recognize that there is an overwhelming majority voting YES on this proposal, so while we don’t agree with the current composition of the proposal, we acknowledge the sentiment of those who have taken the time to vote on this.
- One thing to note is that most users are unaware of the ABSTAIN option, and we wanted to take this opportunity to highlight this functionality in the
eosio.forumcontract. Feel free to read through the technical specifications which we outlined for how votes are understood by the contract if you’d like to learn more.
EOS Canada votes NO for this referendum.
- We see no value of this proposal as it seems to only distribute tokens, not wealth. This would leave everyone in the same position as they currently are, just with more tokens in their account. From an economic standpoint, there should be no effect.
- Due to the above point, we don’t see how this would be a net positive for the chain.
- The current voting base for this proposal is overwhelmingly negative.
These are the first referendums on which we wanted to voice our opinion, and is not an exhaustive list of what we feel to be important to the chain and the token holder community. Please feel free to reach out to us and let us know what is important to *you*. We are here to serve and operate the network on your behalf, and we value the trust that you have delegated to us. We are humbled each and every day by the opportunity you have afforded us, and we want to ensure that we continue to earn your trust.