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.
“Voter enforced standby Block Producer rotation.”
We vote ‘yes’ on chainri4cvib (https://bloks.io/vote/referendums/chainri4cvib) because it is a very strong proposal to ensure the viability of back up block producers. Running sock puppet BPs is a constant fear in the community regarding the security of the EOS network. This is a great step to move passed that head wind.
“Update & Replace regproducer Ricardian Contract”
We vote ‘yes’ on regproducer1 (https://bloks.io/vote/referendums/regproducer1) because this is a thoughtful step at creating some rules for BPs to hold each other accountable to. While this new regproducer RC was built and presented by EOS 42, the team consulted with other BPs around the world to put something together they think 15/21 BPs can confirm in an msig. We will likely learn a lot from how this contract is enforced, or not, and is a thoughtful experiment that the network should try.
“Have a small fee to create a referendum.”
We vote ‘abstain’ on pollpropcost (https://bloks.io/vote/referendums/pollpropcost) because it is not currently being ‘abused.’ This is something we can consider in the future, if we have a problem with spam. A ‘small’ cost to some may be a lot to others, subjectively choosing an ‘entry fee’ to voice your opinion is restrictive.
“Should EOS establish a voluntary, non-inflationary, commons fund for EOS core development through a bidding system built on top of eosio.token smart contract?”
We vote ‘yes’ on tokenauction (https://bloks.io/vote/referendums/tokenauction) because this is a thoughtful experiment at voluntaryism in the EOS network. This is a thoughtful effort to decentralize and focus the idea of a first attempt at a commons development fund to aid the health and progress of the EOS blockchain.
“When staking, should users be able to (optionally) increase their future unstaking duration?”
We vote ‘yes’ on unstaking (https://bloks.io/vote/referendums/unstaking) as it gives the token holder greater control over their holdings, if they choose that option. If an account holders active key is compromised and the original account owner does not want to check for this every three days, they can choose longer unstaking periods. Of course, the floor of 3 days will remain in place.
“CVIB Proposal – Hyperion History – Scalable history API solution for EOSIO based blockchains.”
We vote ‘yes’ on hyperion.api (https://bloks.io/vote/referendums/hyperion.api) as it is a fantastic solution for chain history that is scalable.
“Eosio.saving (WPS) account long term management proposal.”
We vote ‘no’ on managewps (https://bloks.io/vote/referendums/managewps) because 1% inflation pay to BPs is currently not globally distributed. Adding more inflation to the pool for distribution has the potential to be distributed the same way, further centralizing the network.Until a mechanism is in place to ensure ‘fair and balanced’ distribution of increased inflation funds, inflation should not be used for something like WPS.