Brockpierce1 Proxy: EUA & Referenda

Brock Pierce Proxy Referendum Voting, First Submission

After thoughtful consideration, the Brock Pierce Proxy team has elected to vote on-chain via the Referendum tools on the following referenda. The justification for our voting decisions is listed in this document. Please join the discussion in the @brockpierce1 Telegram channel if you have any questions or thoughts you would like to share on these items.


Should EOS adopt the EOS User Agreement (EUA) in place of the interim Constitution?”

Our first choice and the most important one to focus on currently. The EUA referendum, will replace the current main governing document of EOS, the interim Constitution.

Even though the interim constitution is inadequate, we agreed to it. The interim C was adopted by all block producers when they registered as a block producer candidates (regproducer Ricardian Contract) and by all of the users when they activate their accounts in popular wallets and voting portals (by clicking “Agree”).

As part of agreeing to the Interim C, we also agreed to how the governance could be amended or replaced. Article XI of the interim C states that the terms for amending (or replacing) it would be: 15% voter participation and 10% more “yes” than “no” votes being sustained for 30 days.

The brockpierce1 proxy team supports upgrading the interim C in accordance with maintaining the integrity of our agreement as outlined in Article XI. This will also maintain the integrity of the decentralization of the EOS network and unlock a precedent of high voter turnout to be followed in the future in voting on important items in

We vote ‘yes’ on the Referendum proposal ‘eosuseragree’ ( because it will move the EOS network forward in an efficient manner. DPoS is base layer governance. We base our support of this refereundum on the idea that the eosuseragree will be re-proposed when it expires and that all parties will vote again to pass by the terms of via the terms set forth in Article XI. It is our hope that will vote abstain on this proposal, which will propel wider token holder support – pushing the proposal above the 15% participation threshold.

History of Votes on EUA (source:


Should future EOS tokens sent to eosio.ramfee and eosio.names accounts be allocated to REX?”

We vote ‘yes’ on rex4all ( because we believe this is a thoughtful experiment with very little downside, other than not meeting expectations in terms of increased network participation. It is worth trying and most code for Rex itself will be put to an msig for top 21 BPs to approve soon.


Would EOS be better off if ECAF would not be able to issue key switching orders and we would rather rely on the code and block producers 15 out of 21 multisig?”

We vote ‘abstain on decaf ( because the proposal is lacking in sufficient details AND if EUA passes (which we support) then ECAF will be removed via that referendum.


Should the EOS mainnet establish the EOS Commons Development Program as outlined in this referendum?”

We vote ‘abstain’ on wps ( We like the idea of experimenting with WPS, in general, but the committee should be chosen by token holders and/or 15/21 top BPs. We look forward to seeing a form WPS experimented with in the future.


Do you support and wish to adopt the EOS Community Constitution?”

We vote ‘no’ on ecc ( The EUA is a better path forward for defining base layer governance.


This proposal seeks to change the EOS annual rate of inflation from 5% to 1%.”

We vote ‘yes’ on inflation ( because it takes away an attack vector. These funds are likely safe, but it’s a ~32M EOS honeypot that isn’t being used. Further, this was accumulated over just 9 months, if we have a project we want to build with these funds later, we can use what is accumulated after the burn. Also, inflation can be voted on to turn back to a higher level in the future, if token holders see fit.

Please join our Telegram channel @brockpierce1 and proxy your vote with us by voting for brockpierce1.