I personally have a very different take than EOSREAL on the EOS New York announcement. I consider it a normal and indeed very healthy response to the current situation.

Some background

Word has circulated that at least some BPs had received over the weekend a putative “Arbitrator’s Order” that appeared to them to be a forgery.

Allocating responsibility

No BP can demand that ECAF, or any other arbitration forum, do or not do anything. That’s normal for separation-of-powers systems.

Every BP must take care to only follow arbitrator orders that they (the BP) have first validated, and not allow themselves to be spoofed.

Therefore it is probably incumbent on each BP to publish what criteria they need an arbitrator’s order to meet, for that BP to accept the order as valid. (This setting up of a clear API is a normal aspect of communication, whether it’s between two pieces of code, two people, to companies, or two elements of a governance system.)

Next steps

I have confidence that the BPs and the various arbitration forums, starting with ECAF, will quickly work out the details of their mutual API for clear and verifiable communication of crucial information in both directions, just as we see the BPs now engaged in regularizing and formalizing their own internal communications around BP coordination.