EOS - So arbitrators didn't rule because of the interim constitution? Learn what's wrong about this!

What we had yesterday was real big cinema! I even forgot to stream any shows, with first rate drama now available on chain. What looked like simple arbitration case on scam, turned into an instituional crisis in no time. Read here if you are not aware of the

https://busy.org/@conceptskip/eos-governance-what-a-mess

So this case has been properly handed, but what i find really irritating is the following:
Now lots of commentators and even bps - in the aftermath - now came up claiming, that the reason for the EOS Core Arbitration Forum declaring itself incompetent was based on the interim nature of the constitution and that it hasn't been properly ratified....

Apparently this seems understandable to many, but honestly it doesn't make much sense at all.

The fact that the constitution is interim, first and foremost means, that it needs to be changed and a referendum be held for it to become permanent, or final.

But how could it be not a base for jurisdiction, because if it weren't in place the constitution would be meaningless at all, and EOS would have just no governance at all. They could have launched eos with empty governance docs.
Of course this might be to the liking of anarchists or code-is-law-tin-hats, but it would not be what eos is about, and the question would be, why bother about a 15% vote requirement or anything at all, because bps and everyone else in the domain would not be guided by anything.

And this is just what Thomas Cox confirmed in yesterday's EOSrad.io show:

The real issue unfortunately seems to be just as troubling: For arbitration to be legitimiate both parties would need to accept arbitration. And although it was promised, that every EOS transaction would hold a reference to the constitution, so you would never be able to be outside the eos legal framework once touching it, this has not been implemented.

So there are several cases imaginable where one - the fraudulent party - could claim to have not accepted the constitution and not being up to be ruled upon.
The bad thing about this, is that a vote on the constitution cannot better that, because, if you look now, we have 22% of tokens voted, and that might not rise significantly so.

It also means, that there will always be a majority of token holders who could claim to have not accepted arbitration. So no solution there.

A few devs now add opt ins and acknowledgements to their wallets and portals, but i guess you will always find one that slips your attention, thus creating new attack vectors.

How about you? Do you agree with the current set-up of arbitration? Do you think it will be valid on-chain?