Block.one released its proposal of a new version of the EOS constitution: the EOS Constitution v2.0. EOS has been under fire recently for its block producers freezing user accounts[1] without the account owner’s permission. Does the new constitution address this issue?
EOS Constitution v2.0: What’s in It?
One of the first things to catch my eye was the (semi) address to the issue of freezing EOS accounts. Essentially, the constitution says, Stop, don’t do that, unless…:
“Block producers shall not freeze or modify contracts that are operating as intended.”
“Operating as intended” is the key phrase to pick up here. If everything is hunky-dory with an account, then nobody has any right to touch it but the owner of said account, which is totally fair. However, if something is amiss, block producers evidently have free range to swoop in and do as they see fit. Fair? Maybe. But some still might argue against this.
This is also talking more in lines of contracts and doesn’t actually mention accounts specifically. So, are accounts actually included here? Maybe, maybe not.
Smart Ricardian Contracts
Speaking of contracts, EOS is employing what has been termed smart Ricardian Contracts. What is a smart Ricardian Contract? It’s a smart contract that “specifies both free-form terms as well as terms implemented in code.”
A free-form term could be something like requiring a block producer to disclose the fact that they are a block producer. The community is currently discussing free-form terms more in depth, if they want to enforce them and if they do, how to enforce them.
Smart Ricardian contracts are aimed at documenting the intent of the parties involved. The contracts should also be able to show
