The EOS Community Governance Proposal, breakdown.
Life moves on, and the EOS community is beginning to turn the corner, metaphorically speaking, in regard’s to communal expectations, and there are several reasons for this newfound sense of optimism, but probably none more significant than the recent return, and active community engagement of Dan Larimer himself. As is often the case, and should not come as a surprise to anyone that has been following Dan Larimer for any linked of time, when he sets his mind on doing something, he is not shy about jumping into the metaphorical deep end of the pool, and addressing the perceived problems head on. And this time is no different, I am writing this article to do a breakdown, of the recently submitted proposal by Dan Larimer himself, which of course I am talking about the (EOS community governance proposal). This article is intended to give a summary, and my personal commentary, of many of the ideals and concepts proposed in this recent proposal, OK now let’s get started.
First off in case you were unaware, EOS which we now know stands for, EOS governance community code-name, Eden, which is the name of the current code- name for the governance community, Eden Operating System aka EOS. This proposal first starts off by addressing, one of a society’s biggest obstacles in determining who is within or out of a community. In the world of crypto-currencies, a “group member” may be defined as someone who either vouches for a coin’s legitimacy or as someone who is part of that coin’s community. Which can sometimes be problematic, since it can offer trolls and rivals the ability to undermine or disparage a group.
Participants who remain active in the group often believe in the legitimacy of the decision-making process or others who lead. To be a group participant, you must typically have “skin in the game,” which implies you must own tokens. This is usually the common opinion of most crypto currency societies.
Regrettably, this encourages anyone with money to participate, regardless of their ethical standards.
To borrow an example used by this proposal, consider what would happen if your nation permitted someone to purchase a passport for one dollar. By merely sending an army of anti-citizen to purchase their way into a less populated world, uncontrolled immigration will cause a populous nation to conquer the community of a less populous country.
When societies are freely allowed to make choices, their strength rests in the solidarity of the persons who freely concede to their point of view rather than in the resistance of those who choose to remain apart. It is not enough to provide a token unless it has meaning. A claim could be made, that to hold, or just keeping tokens as a component of governance is pointless. A group is usually worse off because it cannot make choices without potentially engendering discord or fostering distrust.
The greater crypto-currency ecosphere has a lot of blurry terminology, such as “community member” and “self-professed”. Thus, someone may pretend to be a part of a hypothetical society and behave in a manner that violates established norms. A better definition of a community member could be, someone who voluntarily participates in, and respects the governance process of the current community. Most community goals are to boost and secure its members’ global freedom and power. A society that is split against itself would not be able to survive long. This is not to assume that everybody in a society would consent on everything, but to put it another way, they must negotiate on the communal governance policies and collectively respect the outcome, regardless of full agreement.
Most society starts with one individual creating a vision and encouraging others to participate. You would be hard pressed to find a dominant society that, did not at one point in time have a uniting founding figure or figures, to get the ball rolling. Case in point, for the Americans it was George Washington, for the UK it may have been someone like William the Conqueror, for modern Spain, Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, and for the Chinese, the first emperor of a united China, Qin Shi Huang.
Alternatively, it could begin with a small group of people who agree on a governance process and then begin inviting others to join. Regardless of the process that we in the EOS community apply, we should be cognizant of the fact that, it is often ineffective to have an “open community” where people can join without being invited. And I think it is pretty clear in hindsight that this is likely one of the core reasons there is so much internal community, fear, uncertainty, and doubt, aka FUD, within the EOS community today.
If we are to have a properly united core community of holders in good standing, it is necessary to distinguish between proper participants, versus anti-holders, who or incentivized often financially, to disrupt and undermine the cohesion of a rival community. And this EOS community governance proposal will go a long way in addressing many of the core fundamental issues that the EOS community is dealing with, not in just the area of governance, but also in the area of properly vetting community participants, who have influence.
In hindsight it is pretty easy to say, or argue that, this process should have been integrated within the EOS main-net blockchain upon conception, at the very start. Why was this process not proposed and flushed out in the beginning, rather than waiting until things have deteriorated to such a point nearly three years later, and I’ll be the first to tell you that this is a fair and legitimate point. But regardless of well-meaning desires for some to pass criminations, and point the finger at what should have been done versus what was not done in the past. A much healthier and more constructive path forward is to simply, deal with the problems at hand currently.
I have stated in one of my previous articles in the past that, there will always be problems, and there will always be proposed solutions, the bottom line is that, often what makes a blockchain most valuable, is the strength of its community. And I believe this proposal will go a long way in strengthening the core EOS holder community, and I am for one grateful to Dan Larimer for proposing it, and addressing many of the current EOS main-net holders, concerns, and accusations. And I believe this will go a long way in helping most EOS community members heal from past failures, and this gives the EOS community a clear path to persevere towards the original dream of more equitable governance.
To all EOS holders, it’s time for a community governance layer.