Dan Larimer, the founder of EOS (EOS), surprisingly proposed on Wednesday, June 27th, that the project should change its constitution and be replaced by a new one. The executive’s statement comes just two weeks after the launch of the new protocol. The information was released in a conversation on the EOSGov channel of the Telegram messaging service. Larimer himself subsequently published his arguments for this change on the Medium platform.
The main argument for suggesting this change is that the current constitution gives too much power to the Arbitration Forum. Indeed, the current standard requires that all smart contracts on the EOS network to be kept “documented with a Ricardian Contract, stating the intention of all parties and appointing the Arbitration Forum that will resolve disputes arising from that contract.”
That means that arbitrators can resolve disputes directly without having defined the scope of their authority. Larimer proposes to limit the power for them to govern over issues arising from differences between code and intent, hacking and vulnerability management.
Changing EOS (EOS) standard would be a challenging procedure
The change proposed by the EOS founder is not easy to make. If he decides to revoke it himself, it will become clear that the bill is centralized, without taking into account that they would be committing a legislative suicide. In fact, the EOS constitution does not have a clause specifying such a scenario.
The clause that comes closest to Larimer’s wishes is clause XIII, which reads as follows:
The Constitution and subordinate documents may not be amended except by a vote of the holders of tokens with at least a 15% share of votes between tokens and not less than 10% more votes Yes than No, held for 30 continuous days within a period of 120 days.
EOS (EOS) constitution
Generally speaking, if the vote were to be taken on the founder’s new proposal, the suggested changes would not become a reality until after 120 days. In his Medium article, Larimer explained that “Ricardian contracts should be drafted in such a way that all actions permitted by the intent of the code are valid actions and parties should not be expected to refrain from actions that are beyond the scope of the code to enforce.”