Excerpt: The price of the cryptocurrencies has made many people realize that there is only a ray of distance from the peak to the bottom. The “winter” of cryptocurrencies has come.
How much faith do you left to have?
The existing constitution does not ban this, it only requires disclosure. StartEOS have been completely transparent about this, and token holders can and are voting accordingly. I would say this is not about StartEOS not caring, it is that the majority of tokens holders don’t consider this a problem and may welcome the tokenomics of the model being built out.
Josep – eosBarcelona | BlockDappsLab.com posts:
When I introduce EOS on meetups ppl ask me what they get for voting… They are asking if the got some kind of revenue share. And When I explain that this is forbidden, they are usually disappointed. Not sure if this is a cultural thing from Spain
David P – EOS42 gives his opinion:
StartEOS have just gone for a very explicit model, stuck two fingers up at the constitution and implemented what has possibly been going on more covertly prior to this. Their justification (revenue diversification) is even aligned with Daniel’s demand of BP’s, so it’s just that pesky matter of it arguably being unhealthy long term for the network, especially if all BP’s go this route.
Syed | EOS Cafe Block | bloks.io writes:
Lets say Chintai starts a proxy. The principle isn’t much different from their game. People put in EOS into the contract, get back a reward 7 days later. In the meantime, votes are proxied to BPs chintai likes.
Kevin Rose – EOS New York :
This should be a wake up call to everyone. The model of “build things and give them away for free” isn’t going to fly. StartEOS is calling the constitution’s bluff and they’re right. Dan is out stacking the chips against BP reward dependent groups. If you want to survive you must commercialize something.
Sharif eosDublin | eosBootcamp.com posts:
If we are giving up on the whole vote buying article. How long before we give up on the rest of the constitution. I thought we would wait until a couple of failed referendum, but it looks like it won’t take that long. If BPs want to support the current C and the governance that we all signed up to, they need to make a stand to protect it. If not then at least we all know the rules of the game have changed.
Michael Yeates writes:
we are increasing the efficiency. i asked thomas about how we can actually enforce this and his plan was to fork off anyone that votes for the bad guys
Sharif eosDublin | eosBootcamp.com asks:
Anyone got any idea, with all this selling are we getting new people into the community or are the same people buying from the deserters?
Just wondering as on a lot of exchanges there is no mention of any constitution. That’s my suggestion, Lets run that (C2) as Referendum number 1 and see if it gets 150M votes.
If not , the whole idea of referendum should be shelved and looked at again in a very long time.
David P – EOS42 posts:
I wonder if economic necessity and BP’s on the brink of shut down in a couple of months will force an emergency 15/21 change to the rewards structure or issuance? Maybe network integrity and survival will prompt something after x months of sub-$2 loss making.. or we’ll see a wave of BP’s able to commercialise and generate revenue streams and we’ll all be fine on 50 cent EOS
Myles Snider – Aurora EOS writes:
It’s going to be interesting. EOS is the largest experiment in on-chain governance conducted yet. But the network launched during the craziest period of speculative mania this industry has ever seen. Most token holders can’t be bothered to actually participate in governance, hence the inability to get things done except by 15/21 BP vote. This is all very new. There will be serious growing pains, no doubt
Sharif eosDublin | eosBootcamp.com gives his opinion:
BPs need to realise that they are the only game in town for decision making. Many have been delaying doing anything until a referendum is carried out. Governance and Grand Constitutions were over sold. I don’t believe anyone did anything wrong, that is just how it played out. There has only been two serious BP proposals since launch , increasing RAM and Changing Keys on last ECAF order.
David P – EOS42 writes:
You saying that as the network’s only elected representatives, we should be doing more to responsibly run the network in its own best interests and proactively making decisions, not sitting back impotently waiting for referenda?
I agree fully, BP’s are meant to be acting independently of everybody else and making decisions in the long term best interests of the network and token holders. That’s it, that’s our job. So if we feel something such as configuration changes are in the best interests of the network we should be proposing, voting and implementing it dynamically and quickly, not talking about waiting 2mths+ for a referendum where turnout may be very low and voters unaware of the complexities of the issues at hand.
I believe if BPs start now to propose and make decisions quickly and efficiently we have a chance.
The message to all token holders (Big and Small) should be we understand our responsibility are working to protect the value of the network and your investment. And we should set a high bar for transparancy and accountabilty.
If that doesn’t work, we can try something else.
We are on a good path. A green blockchain. Good relations developed every day. Enhancing the EOSIO technology. Building solutions. Scaling it.