Meeting Minutes — 80% Genesis Lockup Proposal Discussion

Meeting Generals

1. Topic: EOSForce governance discussions — 80% genesis lockup
2. Meeting time: 2019.01.25 13:00–14:30 UTC
3. Format: open-house ZOOM meeting
4. Host: Wang Wei from Walianwang
5. Attendees: EOSForce community members, super nodes and candidate nodes, EOSForce core team.

Proceedings

1. Lockup plan background intro
2. BP representative introduce lockup plan background
3. Community discussion on 3 unlock plans (discussion does not result in direct proposal passage)
4. Open discussion on governance issues

Agenda

Agenda 1 — Lockup Proposal Background Intro

1. Intro by proposed BPs
2. Exchange of views on the proposal

Agenda 2 — BP representative introduces lockup plan background

1. Awake introduces the passed lockup proposal

Awake BP once proposed that portion of assets above 40,000 tokens of the unactivated accounts be deleted for the following reasons:

• There should not be an unlimited activation time.
• Whales do not participate in the community and treat EOSForce as airdrop candies, causing dumping pressure to the community.
• EOSForce did not have an ICO and has no strict obligation to the genesis accounts.
• Keep the accounts with less than 40,000 tokens can minimize the total number of affected accounts.

2. Jiqix introduces lockup plan

Jiqix proposes a lockup plan out of the concern to minimize the error probability of locking up and shares its views:

• Fairness is divided into procedural fairness and consequence fairness. In consequence, lockup is unfair to late-comers, but is procedurally fair. With no issue, any decision should be materilized by the current community.
• Lockup aims to protect EOSForce its own. If the EOSForce token price is unstable, no dapp will be willing to develop on EOSForce. If EOSForce then shuts down its services, the 20% of unactivated accounts is no different from 200% or 1000%. Existence is paramount in front ofthe pursuit of absolute fairness.
• Lockup is not the fairest nor the best solution, but is the best for the time being and is better than outright deletion. Lockup first and then other solutions minize the risk of errors. Whether or not unfreeze later, how to unfreez or total delete, it depends on community opinion. But that is not for now.
• New proposals about deleting portions above 40,000 tokens is not fair. Disagrees. Any other proposal concerning such should take into account the spirit of contract.

Agenda 3 — Community discussion on 3 unlock plans (discussion does not result in direct proposal passage)

The community reaches the concensus that a proposal should be listened to regarding changing the in-effect lockup plan. However, due to the absence of the community members who proposed the suggestions and disagreements among BPs, furhter discussions are not held.

Agend 4 — Open Discussions on Governance

• Cyborg:

1. A lockup is helpful in preventing malicious whale exchange eactivities and EOSForce from being hijacked by them.
2. Goal of EOSForce is to leave to the genesis investor a clean land of seeds for a different future.
3. Anyone can submit proposals to be up for voting. Anyone should be able to know which BP supports their proposal and which does not, and which titles of the proposal needs amendment.
4. Later proposals should shorten the voting time to channel the visions of the voters better.

• Swedencornet:

1. Telos example could be borrowed to limit the token amount of an account to diversify EOSForce from EOS EMLG.
2. A upper limit of 5000–40000 of token could replace the 80% genesis lockup plan.
3. Upper limit can also ensure price stability and relieve market pressure.
4. Everyone should have the problem-solving attitude of the community.

• EOSphere:

1. The Chinese BPs are getting too stuck in the lockup issue. We should not forget the global picture in stimulating the EOSForce community.
2. Overseas BPs did not join previous because they were not aware of its existence.
3. During the passage of the 80% lockup plan, overseas users were not adequately informed.
4. We should maintain a global picture and understand the international community users.
5. We should have more ways to encourage participation from the EOSForce community since the existing measures are not enough.
6. Nobody wants the token price to drop. But there are ways to encourage community participation while stabilizing the price. Some measure such as staking the tokens in some ecosystem activity could be a solution.

END

BP Proposals accepted: BPproposal@eosforce.io