The EOS community has another big event: the old and new rules have changed blood to cause controversy, and the three major problems have affected its future development.

"Teacher, EOS has a new dynamic recently? The price of the currency has not changed." The soldiers looked a little anxious.

"I know that I care about the price of the currency. It was not the last time I was on the main online line. But to talk about the dynamics, there is really a big deal recently."

"Ah? What?"

"The EUA agreement passed the super-node vote, replacing the previous interim convention."

"Ah? EUA is awkward? Is this a big deal?" The soldier looked blank.

"Absolutely, at least from the governance level, it can be said that from now on, 21 super nodes have said that EOS officially entered without the 'presidential', nor the 'House of Representatives', only the Senate era consisting of 21 senators ……"

————Dividing line————

Although EOS has many fans, but what is the EUA, many of the holders may be confused.

To put it simply, the EOS NEW YORK SuperNode, on March 13, proposed the EUA (EOS User Agreement), the EOS User Agreement, to replace the original EOS Provisional Convention (or interim constitution) proposal.

On April 12, after nearly a month of voting, the proposal won 15 approval votes and was finally approved.

The CEO of immediately congratulated on Twitter, saying: "Congratulations to EOS, this is a huge milestone, paving the way for rapid development of high performance and decentralized governance. "

Why does the CEO of think this event is a huge milestone?

01 Most like the public chain governance of the real political world

The biggest feature of EOS is that it sacrifices part of the decentralization. It adopts the DPoS consensus mechanism with higher degree of PoS centralization. By voting with the currency holder, 21 super nodes are selected. The super node has the right to block and the DPoS mechanism. Improve the efficiency of the block.

At the same time, EOS is the first blockchain to have a “constitution”, in addition to an ECAF (EOS Core Arbitration Court) institution similar to the Supreme Court.

Therefore, from the perspective of governance model, EOS has the style of “representative system” in Western countries. In other words, the governance model of EOS is full of "man-management" color.

This is very different from the concepts of “complete decentralization” and “code is law” advocated by V God and others.

However, there are also views that EOS's DPoS is more like an exploration of blockchain governance in another dimension. It is too early to make a conclusion about the strengths and weaknesses of the governance model.

02 The origin of EUA

The EOS Constitution is mainly based on the basic concepts of freedom and property protection, and is formulated with reference to the legal provisions of the US Constitution and other professions. The Convention has a total of 20 articles, which explain private property rights, non-violence, and no perjury. Among them, giving ECAF a lot of rights.

It is also the existence of the ECAF (Core Arbitration Court) that the EOS Constitution has been criticized by users as “highly ruled by people”, especially after the main online line ECAF performs the freezing of account operations, which has caused much controversy in the community.

According to this situation, EOS founder BM put forward the idea of ​​improving the EOS constitution. The core idea is to cancel the ECFA and the private key is supreme, which is more in line with the spirit of “code is the law”.

The current EUA is a new version of the community's convention, which is led by the EOS NEW YORK super node. The core idea is to completely abolish the arbitration, and the user is completely responsible for the security of his account's private key, which is highly consistent with the BM concept.

EOS founder BM also publicly stated that it is neutral to the EUA, but the EUA is indeed better than the current convention, and the shortcoming is that it is too long.

03 EUA's process of replacing the constitution is quite dramatic

Although the EUA replaces the EOS interim constitution, it is significant, but the whole process is full of drama.

The previous EOS Constitution clearly states that any amendment to the EOS Constitution or Convention must meet the following two conditions:

1. The turnout rate is not less than 15%

2. In each 120 days, there is no more than 10% of the voting rate for more than 30 consecutive days…

Does the EUA meet these two conditions? The answer is totally unsatisfied!

This is also OK! ? Such a big thing as "revision of the constitution", in the case of completely unsatisfied conditions, said that the change will be changed, that the change will be changed, but also directly passed?

That's right, it really means changing. Since the launch of the EOS referendum tool, community participation has been very low , and the voting rate of many proposals is around 1% to 2%, which is far from the required 15%. If you follow the process, there is no way to pass the proposal.

EOS NEW YORK Super Node also knows that regardless of the quality of the proposal, the low voter turnout is almost inevitable. In order to replace the original EOS interim constitution with the EUA, it must pass other channels.

One of the topics thrown by the EOS NEW YORK super node is the rationality of the existing rules:

Is it necessary to have a 15% referendum threshold?

Not only that, but EOS NEW YORK also demonstrated in detail that the 15% threshold is meaningless. And claim that the referendum is a reference, the final decision will still fall to the hands of the super node. In this case, why do the super nodes not vote directly and decide whether to go to the EUA?

Most super nodes agree with this proposal for the EOS NEW YORK super node. In this way, 21 super nodes voted, and finally the EUA replaced the interim constitutional proposal, and the EUA Convention came into effect immediately!


04 Meaning of EUA adoption

The adoption of the EUA means that the EOS governance mechanism will be further upgraded, mainly in the following two aspects:

1. Re-concentration of rights, higher governance efficiency, and more pure DPoS.

If the EOS governance mechanism is like the Senate and the House of Representatives design, 21 super nodes represent the Senate, and the referendum is similar to the House of Representatives, then the adoption of the EUA means that the House of Representatives has been abolished and the chain governance is completely handed over to 21 “senators”. (Super Node) is solely responsible.

This has the same effect as the promotion of TPS, sacrificing a certain degree of decentralization and democracy, and bringing about a substantial increase in governance efficiency.

Even so, all holders still retain the most fundamental and core rights: the right to decide who will be 21 super nodes.

Since then, EOS has entered a more thorough "representative system", as well as more pure DPoS, almost completely abandoning the situation that the PoS mechanism needs universal governance.

2. The return of Code is Law.

Although in terms of conventional governance, 21 super nodes now have supreme rights. However, in the concept of “private property inviolability” at the core of the blockchain, the EUA completely abolished the ECAF, and the private key security was completely personally responsible, advocating the concept of “mastering the private key and mastering everything”. Therefore, in the EOS governance, the seemingly "human governance" component is strengthened again, but in the core concept, it is the return of Code is Law.

05 opposition voice

Although the EUA has received the support of most super nodes, it has been able to replace the interim constitution. However, some super nodes do not recognize the EUA's procedure to replace the EOS interim constitution, which is considered to be in violation of the EOS Convention and harms the interests of EOS holders.

The EOSLaoMao SuperNode disagreed and expressed its opinion:

Those familiar with the governance of the EOS chain are well aware that the EOS main network convention is the cornerstone of governance on the EOS chain. However, the current EOS main network convention clearly stipulates that the amendments to the Convention or the new Convention can be deployed only after the public decision of the holder of the currency has been passed.

More precisely, at least 15% of the holders of the currency must participate in the referendum, and amendments to the Convention or new conventions may take effect. In fact, whether the vote is voted through the EUA's referendum is only less than 1.8% of the participation, far from the 15% minimum required by the existing convention. In this case, the outbound node directly submits the multi-sign proposal, attempting to deploy the EUA convention immediately after collecting 15 signatures from the top 21 outbound nodes, which is in violation of the current EOS main network convention. It is not appropriate to damage the interests of EOS holders.

The mission of the EOS SuperNode is to maintain the EOS owner's rights and interests while maintaining the security and stability of the EOS main network. For this reason, the EOSLaoMao team does not agree to deploy new conventions in violation of the original convention.

06 The current problem of blockchain management

From the voice of EOSLaoMao's opposition, you can get a glimpse of the current EOS and even the entire blockchain industry governance problems.

The opposition of the EOSLaoMao node is justified: any changes should be in accordance with the Convention and be legally procedurally. The EUA's online line does violate the original EOS constitution. If 21 super nodes can override the constitution, what is the constitutional role of the Supreme Law? This time, a new "constitution" can be introduced in violation of the constitution. Who can guarantee that this will not happen in the future? What is the binding force and authority of the Constitution?

However, this "EUA incident" is not entirely unreasonable. The original constitution set a threshold of 15%, but the actual situation is that in addition to last year's main online line, the turnout rate has reached this threshold, and other proposals almost never pass the 2% voter turnout. If you are obsessed with the threshold of 15%, the governance of the project should not be promoted, and the project has not developed yet?

The current EOS governance issues, in general, have the following three problems:

1. Participation is too low

The website shows that in the EOS related proposal, the user participation is higher, and the voting rate is only about 2%.

▲ voter turnout rate for EOS related proposals (from:

Voting this thing is not an easy task in the real world. Western countries have tried hard to vote for the vote. Since 1980, the voter turnout rate in the US election has hovered from 48% to 57%. In recent years, there has been a downward trend. The voter turnout rate in the Australian general election is quite high, with more than 80%, but that is the government's mandatory vote. If you do not vote, you will be fined, and the "rights" will be completely turned into an "obligation" to enforce. In the world of blockchains, it is difficult to force a holder to vote. Welcome to vote below and post your opinion~

2. The threshold is too high

For most people, participating in blockchain investment and figuring out what Bitcoin, Ethereum, and EOS are already very high thresholds.

Blockchain voting is higher than the blockchain investment threshold. First, you must know how to use your wallet and know how to use your wallet for a referendum. More importantly, you still have to understand the logic and stakes behind each proposal.

3. No economic incentives and binding mechanisms

For most money holders, the ones that care the most and only care about it may still be making money!

If it is a short-term operation, it is more convenient to put the coin on the trading platform than to put it in the wallet. To participate in the community governance and to vote for it, the coin is required to be placed in the wallet. This creates a contradiction: governance and transactions can't be both. The more direct reason is that EOS holders voted without any financial incentives.

For ordinary currency holders of EOS, transaction convenience is directly related to their own interests, and there is no economic incentive to participate in voting governance . This may be one of the main reasons why most users do not care about not participating in community governance.


『Declaration : This article is the author's independent point of view, does not represent the vernacular blockchain position, and does not constitute any investment advice or advice.

Author: Five fireball leader

We will continue to update Blocking; if you have any questions or suggestions, please contact us!


Was this article helpful?

93 out of 132 found this helpful

Discover more