Saturday, 29 September, 2018
Steve Floyd - eostribe.io makes suggestion:
“There is a lot of stuff circulating about vote trading / vote buying and many of those being accused or implicated seem to have a common response. “It’s not illegal...” But then there is this...
Article IV – No Vote Buying
No Member shall offer nor accept anything of value in exchange for a vote of any type, nor shall any Member unduly influence the vote of another.
Are we at a place where we can’t even discuss it openly at all for fear of repercussion and/or loss of favor? I think that’s a bad look for the whole network. Just because this corruption is being pointed at China at the moment doesn’t mean it’s unique to China. It could happen anywhere and we should all be able to discuss ways to mitigate it, as the implications are far worse than the outcome of public discourse. I think it’s good to press on this stuff because it makes people take a clear position. Ideally, they would take that position and publish it on-chain somewhere, so if they were caught doing the opposite of that, they could be held accountable. How about all the BPs make a public statement on their stance of vote trading / vote buying? Just an idea.”
A lot of users agree with this suggestion.
Denny Wu -HUOBI writes:
“I notice some BP claimed that:We had a fuse get confused when we re-entered the top 21; it thought we were failing to produce blocks on our nodes, and swapped us to an older backup This was resolved pretty much immediately but it seems that tx slipped through. Fortunately it wasn't a transfer. I thought the BP should have no excuse for not in block producing.”
Khosi (eosafricaone) Morafo eosAfrica gives his point:
“I never really thought Article IV through because at first brush, it makes sense. Actually, it does NOT make sense. The C should not have a comment on vote buying/trading. This is a bit like saying countries should not have billateral agreements. It cannot work. Self-interest cannot be policed. I say, let people buy/trade votes.”
“The most common question on all conference and meet ups from “average EOS educated ppl”
“How much money I should invest to full node (they really mean BP) tomorrow and what is the roi?”
After my indirect answer “you need 20 millions staked and it give U 0.5%”, ppl much confused,
EOS voting is most complicated governance for outside ppl understand”.
Denny Wu -HUOBI gives his point:
“I thought the BP should have no excuse for not in block producing ，If someone can not produce block we should kick some BP out”.
Sharif Bouktila - eosDublin anwers him:
“We’ve had BPs unregprod when they’ve had issues and then regprod again once their situation was fixed. I don’t see any reason why that is a problem. A BP not producing for a period of time should be removed. We tried months ago to get some rules agreed on this but like most other initiatives it’s wasn’t brought to a close.”
Sun Tzu talks about voting:
“There appears to be two paths open: (1) make vote trading acceptable which likely means dropping the clause in the C. Or (2) keep vote trading against the C, which means we need to look at discouraging that. Enforcement or education.
Before making the choice, we probably need to think about the principles. What is the outcome in both paths? DPOS with vote trading goes where? DPOS without vote trading does what?
In particular - and now leading to my opinion no more - I think that DPOS with vote trading results in an entrenched 21 which will never be ejected. So at that point, the community has no voice. We serve at the pleasure of the 21. This perhaps leads one to question DPOS as it is currently created - but it may be such a discussion needed in order to frame the choices and decisions?
To take the other path - DPOS banning vote trading - needs some way to resolve that if it is happening. Education doesn't seem to work here. Enforcement? An ECAF filing? What happens when a ruling says that "these N BPs are engaged in a constitutional breach and are dismissed..." or somesuch? That's a hypothetical. Are we ready for that? Will the BPs respect that?”.
Announcements:
“Many organizers of Blockchain/crypto conferences inviting us to tell more about EOS at Russia/Belarus . We plan to attend several of them , will come back with some info , which I’ll gather at list from conference attendee. But personally I do not know many Russian teams (comparable with population), which are interested in EOS.
Majority of them are just interested to get XP to perform outsourcing task”.
Sunday, 30 September, 2018
Jiri Jetmar | EOS Germany | writes:
As long as we see this kind of "leaks" Rampant Collusion in EOS Exposed by Huobi Leak
we do not need to talk about referendum or other little improvements. It seems that there are parties, that are willing to risk everything for some pocket money. Honestly - it is very hard to explain it to investors here in Germany. What they really do not like is unclear facts - like when I'm investing in a great DApp - will some BPs call me and ask for some additional payment to confirm my transactions? If I don't pay, they shut me down? It's like pure poison for EOS...
Sharif Bouktila - eosDublin gives his point:
“I do think there should be a BP Proposal stating that they will honor any referendum result using that contract for X period of time. But one could argue we’d find that out after the fact when BPs have to implement, but I’m wary of the time these things will take.”
Sun Tzu replis him:
“We are in an ad hoc situation. The contract was not delivered as part of mainnet launch. Therefore we will need an ad hoc solution to ratify the contract.
The blockchain is constructed with 3 powers: BPs, Community, ECAF.
ECAF will not involve itself in the question of the referenda contract, and should not, because it stands ready to resolve any disputes, after the fact. So it will not get involved before a dispute.
Community cannot ratify the contract 🙂 bc...
Which leaves BPs. Not that I think this is a good state of affairs, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask BPs to vote and declare which is the referenda contract.”
Sharif Bouktila - eosDublin replis him:
“I think it’s 2 powers - BPs & Community. ECAF is a “professional body” which issues decisions/opinions but has no power to act or enforce. I know rulings should be binding but we haven’t seen that tested yet. They’ve voted for BPs (by stake) and removed support from some actives. As I said in another channel we can wish things were different or address our truth / reality.”
Nathan | GenerEOS | eostoolkit.io about the accusations:
“If everyone is afraid of speaking out about these sort of accusations... especially if they might know more or have some insider info that confirms because they too don't want to lose votes... this will all go no where. I agree there are many outstanding asian and chinese producers, but when a large number of highly positioned producers are made to look bad and are primarily from region... the connection is regretably easy to make. People from those regions should speak out. If they are involved in something "bad" they should evaluate more carefully how the community will start reacting and whether that's worth the continued involvement in these sort of schemes’.
Rick Schlesinger - EOS New York gies his point:
“What worries me most is that the accused BPs aren't putting out statements and transparently showing their financials to prove their innocence. It's easy to try to make this out to be a east v. west thing, but that's not the point. The accused need to respond with full transparency to help correct the information the media is parroting right now. The accused should be extra motivated to produce this information quickly and (one would hope) actively engaging their local and global communities to prove why these accusations are false. We discuss radical transparency on EOS so let's have at it. Eagerly awaiting the accused to respond ASAP.”
Ryan Bethem - EOS42 replies him:
“I’m all for encouraging a community of radical transparency, but in the post truth internet world we live in today, couldn’t anyone just write something up that implicates a BP(s) in vote trading or something similar? It wouldn’t be hard to fabricate reports.
Under this scenario, we could see BPs constantly having to show their financials and scrambling whenever someone wanted to put out a report. I’d rather take the route of making the type of transparency you’re suggesting standard and/or requirement to be a BP ongoing.
Assuming the community agreed, How often should we audit? Quarterly? Who does the audits? What part of the financials need to be shown?”
Kevin Rose - EOS New York writes:
“In the coming days it will be reported that EOS is centralized, that it is a cabal controlled by a few. If the accused feel as if they are stewards of the network it is our hope that they will ferociously refute these claims and do so in a substantiated fashion. Fight. If these claims are false then tell everyone how false they are.”
Tim | GenerEOS | eostoolkit.io answers:
“With Referendum voting getting closer we should be working on proposals that look to address these concerns. B1 might not vote for BPs, however they might vote for Referendum.. just a thought”.
Sun Tzu writes:
“Personally, I think the larger issue is the one of vote trading. This accusation has been floating around in some form for weeks or months. Your skin may red for personal slights, but the community probably has a larger problem if there is widespread cartelisation of the BPs.”