Issue with the language of Article IV

[tkaraivanov]

Current language:
No Member shall offer nor accept anything of value in exchange for a vote of any type, nor shall any Member unduly influence the vote of another.

This also prohibits incentivizing voting through user smart contracts that could be completely unrelated to the network. I believe it is an unintended effect.

Proposed new language:
No Member shall offer nor accept anything of value in exchange for a vote submitted through any system contract, nor shall any Member unduly influence the vote of another.

(assuming that any future referenda contracts would be in fact system contracts)

[honestdude]

What is a member?

[nsjames]

This... is true. This article written as is would prohibit DACs ( for instance ) from returning value ( of any type ) for votes on literally anything.

In fact, this might even prohibit the future Worker Proposal system.

[honestdude]

@nsjames How would you word it? I see both the original and the above-proposed versions to potentially prohibit the worker proposal system. How can we vote on worker proposals, which are presumed to offer value to the community, if all votes are restricted from receiving anything of value in exchange for any vote? How could someone offer anything of value by proposing a worker proposal with expectations of votes? Perhaps we could separate the BP voting system from the worker proposal voting system and also keep them both separate from any other systems of voting, all with specifically designed voting restrictions? How many other diffrent types of voting do we anticipate? Constitutional amendment votes? EOSDAC votes?

[nsjames]

Well, technically the WP contract wont be a system contract ( in the sense it wont live on eosio.system ), but it could just be worded towards BP voting specifically. I'm not a lawyer though :P

[honestdude]

I see, so not on eosio.system, but it will live somewhere and presumably be accessible on chain? "A vote of any type" could apply to every on or off chain vote. Hell, it could apply to any voting for president of the US. I think we should just clarify that this article only applies to BP voting as I don't think we will have the same vote buying issues elsewhere. I believe the WP contract is In fact, intended to essentially be a vote buying system.

I too am proudly not a lawyer or member of the BAR association, but having studied legal, lawful and ethical issues in my spare time, I hope to offer a unique perspective. After all, this constitution must be accessible and comprehensible to everyone unless we expect every EOS member to hire a lawyer before offering informed constitutional consent.

[tkaraivanov]

I don't think we will have the same vote buying issues elsewhere

We probably don't want vote buying on referenda.

[honestdude]

I would have to agree. But the WP contract is directly or indirectly a vote buying system. How would vote buying look on referenda? Amazon announces they will give $10 for every vote cast in favor of changing the constitution to read that Amazon owns EOS?

[honestdude]

Its just a little different than BP voting because BP could without this article indefinitely "share profits" If they neglected to share profits, BPs could be voted out. How would voters even ensure that Amazon pays up?