Do you think it’s something we should be open-minded about? Perhaps it’s something we can all try and make adjustments on the way. If it doesn’t work, at least I can see a community who have come closer together.
1 Like
The current “community” is unchanged and can continue to hold eos. This would create a new way to level up your influence and status in the community.
The thing is - plutocracy always rules one way or another. But it depends on the system what face a plutocracy has and which outcomes it produces.
In democracies plutocracy has an ugly face - it is the opposite of transparent and relies on literally cheating people on every turn. Out of the whales the most ‘ugly’ and cheating ones will have a huge advantage over all of the good ones.
This happened literally everywhere democracies were tried. So by following this route you are actually recreating what has already failed us.
What I suggest is to embrace plutocracy, make it as transparent as possible and ignite the community of whales with a leader such as yourself - at the end of the day you are the reason people put millions in the EOS and they trust your vision, even today. I am not a whale by any means but I would support you financially to lead the community - no need for not really accountable politicians taking it from me through additional inflation.
Democratic elections? No. To me it sounds like ‘should we be more open minded about socialism’? No.
I am all for community coming together and working towards a common goal, I just want them to succeed. It the only reason I am so strongly against democracy.
If success is not important, than it becomes one large democratic playground with huge opportunity costs associated with it. And this community already bled too much from opportunity costs. Another bleeding might be fatal.
Creating dependence on a leader is a problem and traditional democracy is bad. Please consider reading my book.
People need leaders Dan. It’s the way we functioned throughout the times.
Traditional democracy or not, all of them are built on the same flawed foundation and I doubt they would produce practically different results.
You can spend your and communities time and energy to check it for yourself. I would advise against that.
I briefly read through your book but honestly could not convince myself to read it completely because it places too much hope on democracy and fails to acknowledge its unavoidable shortcomings.
@bytemaster, I’m glad you’re back. Actually, you coming back as an individual is the most bullish thing ever happened in EOS history in my view. You should’ve quit 2 years ago. EOS has been missing a leader for too long.
However, unfortunately, during the past 2 years, regardless of your intention, vast majority of the community has lost trust in Block One (and you).
And now you’re coming back as a lone leader. You have vision for the community, will to lead, and legitimacy to do so. But you don’t have (token-weighted) power and money.
Whatever direction you want co-create with the community, you’ll need community’s participation and their token-weighted support. (The initial 100% budget is granted as per BPs decision at the first hand, after all.)
It means that you have to regain the trust and support from those majority of token holders who have hard feelings with B1 (and you).
And you must NOT forget that significant majority of those token are in China and Korea. And the current Telegram and this forum is still an echo chamber.
As a BP and a concerned EOS holder from the day one, here’s one thing I would like to suggest: Make sure that they are heard and win back their trust.
Their concern, their feeling, what matters to them, what they’ve gone through, etc. Then you’ll have to show empathy, apologize for the part you were responsible for, appreciate their support buying into your vision and B1, and clearly communicate in which direction you want to go with the community. Give them chance to come to the term with you and re-align the narrative in their mind with your vision for EOS. (Such irony that we need a leader in the interim for a community that doesn’t depending on a leader.)
Hold AMA call among Korean and Chinese community. Ask questions to the community that will make them feel heard. Be prepared for the hard questions. Ask for their participation and support.
Win trust and support from key whales and influencers. Laomao, Li Xiaolai, etc.
I’m here to help.
13 Likes
I think this is worth considering, it could be far more effective, for EOS’s current situation. “not really acoutable” is a so vivid depiction for those BPs.
I think it would be like China Mode. Of course it’s ugly, but it really works at some time. @bytemaster , it may not be late you turn to a democratic way after bringing EOS to success(mass adoption). You can always pass back Authority to the crowd of community members. I would imagine it like Taiwan Mode at the end.
The democratic way is by all means bright to the EOS holders, but makes EOS less competitive than other crypto solutions. In the end everyone would love democracy, but if EOS failed to gain adoption, it would be a small group’s democracy.
1 Like
What is the relationship between This EOS Community and people outside it?
If This EOS Community grows big, will it have the power to control EOS chain, and then will it decide to occupy tokens held by non-members? It seems to be fruitful for community members, at least in short terms, so why would the community (led by a board or a council) resist the temptation?
Do you think this kind of things actually had happened several times in the human history? Will this community be different?
This too shall be gamed. This bending over backwards attempt to avoid corruption is a noble effort, no doubt. What’s wrong with one-person-one-vote using KYC to prove your identity once and for all-- to avoid this sock puppetry farce we suffer under today?
Kind of. After all other western countries are lackey states with no say at all. Countries and daily life to life decisions are massively influenced by the decisions made in the US.
Regarding this EOS Community push, this desire to gather community funds for various projects— why is such funding necessary? If you have a good idea for a product or service that a real marketplace will accept— and actually pay for— you shouldn’t need to go around with cap in hand begging for funding. Existing sources for capital are available if you have an idea worth implementing.
It’s a fundamental question hanging over all of crypto, not just EOSIOLand: What are the use cases for mass adoption, mass migration, mass infusion of capital? Where are the killer apps? Where is the compelling need for all of business to migrate their cloud platforms? That migration is well under way and most IT budgets are focused on that migration presently. Where is the huge flood of developers begging to be trained in any given crypto technology?
At what level would this take place?
Anyone can propose and all level 1 officials are selected from to judge.
Since DeFi exploded, this is no longer a question i think.
Also, shouldn’t the bond come from small price paid to validate each new member ? Make the cost of attack higher, manageable/accountable.
I think the first thing to do is to support pizza, defibox and defis so that other teams can see successful samples. Let everyone restore their confidence in you. Then govern eos.
The proposal is very interesting. There’re some things that I don’t agree with and others that aren’t very clear to me so I’ll list them here.
-
“A true democracy is created on the basis of “invitation” where new members must be accepted by the group and must in turn voluntarily agree to be part of the group.” - I think this is your description of democracy and not the one commonly accepted by the people.
-
" It is not effective to have an “open community” that allows people to join without an invitation. Such a community would have a composition approximating the culture of existing wealth holders." - I imagine that also your process will result in the most wealthy and famous people being elected from the groups. It’s just how people are. They give their votes to the most powerful/known in the room.
-
“To become a member you must request (or be offered) an invitation from an existing member and have it confirmed by two other members. This means it takes 3 people to agree to accept a new member into the community. Finally, the new member must be approved by at least one elected official of the community.” - I’ve to say that access is a difficult process. I’m wondering how a person should get to know these 3 people and an official if she/he is an outsider to the community.
-
“The reason for this is that the new member will be randomly assigned to meet with 9 other members of the community which will minimize the opportunity for collusion and multiple accounts.” - In what way this mitigates collusion or multiple accounts creation? Is it a zoom call or an in-person meeting?
-
“Each member will be allowed to invite or endorse up to 20 people per election. This means that a group of 3 people can collude to invite at most 20 people per election.” - Doesn’t collusion of 3 people result in 60 people per election? At this rate, a second election would result in more colluded people than there are people in the first round.
-
“If 3 of 5 randomly selected elected officials approve the eviction then the bond is returned, otherwise the bond is forfeit.” - If the group is colluded from subsequent election rounds then it’s easy to make eviction a malicious process rather than community healing.
-
“Each group of 10 must reach an 8 of 10 agreement on who represents their group.” - this is a very high threshold to reach for a random group of individuals that don’t know each other. This could facilitate giving votes to the most powerful/known person rather than the most rational.
-
“The final group of representatives (of size less than 10) will consist of 1 person with 2/3+1 approval (the president) and 2 people randomly selected from the top group (co-vice presidents). This will create 3 people who collectively form the root of the governance authority (a triumvirate). Any action taken by the Triumvirate must be approved by the president and at least one of the vice presidents.” - If the president is part of the Triumvirate then this means he approves his own actions together with another vice-president?
1 Like
Pizza, defibox and defis love eos very much, they are too difficult. If it weren’t for eos, they wouldn’t stay. You should unite them.