EOSCommunity.org Forums

My Response to the EOS Foundation Proposal

Interesting morning. In viewing the recent posts from both Yves and Dan, I do so while wearing my “what’s in the best interest of EOS” glasses. This has after all been my main commitment during the time I’ve engaged with the EOS community through Eden.

With those glasses on I agree with Dan’s point that “the EOS community needs a transitional leader to navigate the journey from stake-weighted decision making toward fractal democracy (aka true democracy).” Similarly from Yves post I agree that “grants, sponsorship’s, and key infrastructure support” are greatly required.

Ideally Yves could have mentioned Eden in his post, and Dan could have suggested a timeline or path for Eden to “deprecate it’s need for the Foundation to allocate the funding it requires” however we can work through those details together.

In light of finding consensus among the EOS community, what Eden explicitly sets out to do, I will put forward the following sets of questions to Yves from myself and others that I’ve seen so far from the community. If Yves is being honest with the following statement, then he will answer each of these questions in an open, transparent, unambiguous manner; “I commit to the EOS community that I will move forward with humility and purpose to meet this moment in our shared history. I am truly honoured by this call to service and will do my best each and every day to be worthy of it.”

  • What EXACTLY is this EOS Foundation?
  • Who are the foundation’s members and how are they selected?
  • Where did the foundation come from (who has played a part in its inception)?
  • What is the foundation’s decision making process comprised of?
  • What does the foundation hope to accomplish/what role will it fill and how?
  • How does the foundation integrate with Eden?
  • Why 2% increased inflation and not say 1%? What about an inflation rate increase that is proportional to the EOS price itself?
  • Why would all of this inflation go directly to an EOS foundation placing itself between the BPs and Eden. Why not commit from the very start the 0.25% directly to Eden as what has been suggested, and the foundation can take the difference?
  • Has B1 been approached, and do we have any indication of their view of this proposal?
  • From Dan’s post, please clearly outline, with measurable kpi and a timeline, how the foundation will “support Eden and the move toward true fractal democracy”?
  • How will the EOS Foundation interact with the future elected Chief Delegates of Eden?

Next I’m going to ask Yves questions that Yves himself had asked during the first trial election. You expected answers to these for 1000 EOS, now its your turn for a much larger pot. We’ll have a mini Eden round via forum post to achieve consensus :slight_smile:

  • What would you do with the budget? (you’ve asked Eden what it would do with substantial funding in advance of receiving it, now its your turn to answer that question).
  • Based on your answer to this: How would you do that? (IE describe the process by which the funds needed will be distributed, tracked, and accounted for)
  • How would you (or those that you are funding) market these ideas?
  • How would you keep those you fund accountable to build what they said they will?

And finally a last set of questions from me directly:

  • Where are you? You’ve dropped this post and are nowhere to be seen. Why are you not engaging with the community as a leader should, and is this how you plan to run the foundation, where ambiguity and FUD are allowed to circulate without a response?
  • What is your commitment to transparency while leading this foundation? Will you hold regular meetings/ama’s where the community can interact with you? How are you going to communicate and engage with the community…commit.
  • Will you have an open call ASAP to hear the questions and concerns from the community and respond, clearly/directly in real time?
  • Can you succinctly summarize your mission/goal statement?
  • Are there timelines that can be tied to this mission and definitions of success/completion?
  • How can the community support your mission? What do you need from us?

I know there is a lot here, but surely that would be expected. Bottom line I am supportive of the intent of what you’re doing @YvesLaRose. I only hope that the principals set out in More Equal Animals will resonate with your proposed EOS Foundation to prevent “party politics, politicians, ballot stuffing, gerrymandering, incumbent advantages, special interest or debates with the authenticity of a WWE wrestling match.”

Your call to action is to answer these questions either here or somewhere else. If consensus is to be reached, then open dialogue must begin.



An Eden-managed EOS Foundation is the best way, even now, in my opinion.

And if BPs support a one-person-managed foundation, why not Eden? So, I think we should take this option to BPs and B1 etc.

We, Eden members, had posted so many ideas about how to find good projects. And, we have the great process. Why not Eden?



We’ve heard the high level view of the ‘What’.

Now we need to understand the nuts & bolts and specifics of the ‘How’.


I’m optimistic this is the start of something really great for all of us who have been putting in long hours these past 4-5 months to turn things around for the EOS community. A lot of time and energy has been poured into getting Eden off the ground, which was no small task with little funding and a volunteer team.

The first 6 months of any project are typically the most difficult. So let’s hope with this announcement we’re all moving out of the grinding phase and into the accelerated growth phase. There’s several experienced and passionate individuals ready to help take EOS to the next level.


I wrote this in the member’s Telegram and I’m cross-posting it here for the record, after deliberating on this topic today.

“EdenOnEOS simply cannot deliver robust, broadly representative governance to EOS until there are a plurality of Edens in multiple language groups. In the meanwhile, I do see wisdom in the philosopher king approach, with a mind towards building the capacity for Eden(s) to effectively govern the network. The foundation can be an Eden incubator. Never a dull moment here in the wild world of subjective governance and ways to bootstrap it. Also, Eleanor Ostrum’s “Governing the Commons.” is such a key read for this crowd, I saw that referenced above somewhere. A tremendous work”


On that topic, the way I read Yves’s post, the idea is to enable the inflation, that automatically goes to the “eos saving” account and after that ask to the BPs to transfer amounts.
Those amounts could go to the Foundation, Eden, Pomelo as matching funds or any other way to improving EOS that the community sees fit.

Basically, I don’t read that the the intend is for the Foundation to manage the whole 2%


Want to know other public chain foundation money is where? Not from inflation, ethereum is deflationary, and you EOS is re-inflationary, other public chains are the founders and project parties to fund the foundation, but you yuelo is thinking of inflation to set up the foundation, yuelo’s final consensus must let these people play!!

ya maybe thats the intent. We’ll need to wait for clarification to fully understand the thoughts on this. If the BPs do get to pick and choose where and when to distribute funds from eos savings it begs the question as to who coordinates that?

Sorry, Ethereum has about 4% inflation, more than EOS, even after the proposed changes.
The resent EIP-1559 change, MIGHT make Ethereum deflationary after the transition to PoS

What about increase Inflation 3%?
Share - 1%: BPs (system support), 1%: Foundation or Eden (develop community), 1%: EOS holder directly without risk (believe EOS)

Yves has answered some of the questions:

1 Like

I agree. But I think the inflation should only be shared with the token holders that just staked and do not vote. (The voted tokens are paid by BPs.)

1%: BPs - share mainly 21 BPs and total 64 BPs
1%: Foundation or Eden - share one or two organization
1%: Holder - Huge personnel (doesn’t matter more earning because stake & vote, however more help decentralize and increase more holder)

I think the system should share inflation to only staked and do not vote tokens because the system now is stated in a prisoner’s dilemma, that all holders are selling votes to BPs otherwise they would lose money. So, the change should pull it back and close such a prisoner’s dilemma.

If after this change the system shares the inflation to voted tokens, then the prisoner’s dilemma still exists. Every staked token will sell their votes to BPs and receive the inflation. The status quo does not change. It does not make sense!

1 Like

The system is designed in a way that all the non BP inflation goes to the account. eosio.savings

And it can only moved by an active BPs multisig.
It will tickle in daily and it won’t have
anything meaningful for months
We will have all the info by then

Then, let’s change the design and give staked_non_vote tokens inflation directly. Send the inflation to the staked_non_vote pool.

In my opinion, promoting that people don’t vote, is not the best thing for the network security

But that should be a completely different discussion, not related with the Foundation

I don’t think so. The staked_non_vote tokens are involved in the system governance too and it is the point to protect the system from the corruption of bad BPs.

Maybe you could read my proposal about this. A New EOS Economic Alignment Proposal