While the EOS mainnet - a few hickups aside - runs smoothly and block producers push block after block, up to 1,4 Million until now (Bitcoin here we come!), EOS governance has a bumpy start, to put it kindly.
As it has come to light the 15% limit required to activate the chain has been only achieved by one benevolent yet still bad acting exchange, that used their clients tokens to vote, moreover exchanges even use those tokens to vote in themselves, over to BlockyMcBlockFace-type bps like EosFlyToMars that for days have been collecting block rewards in violence to any BP agreement on disclosure.
Now try it out yourself and go to the EOSGov Telegram channel, to hear most elaborate sophistry why all those apparent constitution breaches are not eligible for arbitration, and why this still is an emergent crypto-nation and not a banana republic from the very beginning.
A personal favourite: The constitution would only allow for restitution, and may not act punitive.
Now if you are somewhat interested in EOS you might have heard about the @EOS42 initiative called EOS 911 to prevent scammed token holders to be parted from their precious EOS tokens.
I always wondered, how they intended to accomplish this, as banalities like arbitration etc. weren't even mentioned in their original posts.
Now after some back and forth, the 21 block producers decided to freeze some of the accounts of which apparent illigetimate unstaking had already begun.
The gullible token holder like me, might think: of course all those things happen in line with a ruling to an arbitration case, because that's what the EOS constiution and bp agreement says, right, they wont do it just like that?
But in fact this is just what has happened, again out of an act of benevolence the 21 bps have agreed to freeze those accounts in question on their own authority, because as they claim, the ECAF has refused to rule, and declined authority given the fact that there was only a interim constitution in place:
https://steemit.com/eos/@eosnewyork/an-explanation-of-the-emergency-actions-taken-on-17-june-2018
As much as i respect the professionality and tactical elegance shown by the guys of @eosnewyork in that case, i am not entirely sure if their justification holds ground, because if you look on the ECAF page, there is quite a different statement:
https://eoscorearbitration.io/file-a-claim/
Well if this is related to the current case, the message is quite different, and has nothing to do with the interim nature of the consitution (which honestly is beyond ridiculous, can anybody accept that?). 
What they say is, that they can only rule on events on the EOS blockchain and not an Ethereum smart contract, that the ICO scam was based on.
Whereas this is still not satisfactory for the scammed holders, it has much more formal ground then the first one.
Meanwhile the ECAF announced they will provide an official statement by 23:00 UTC
So let's see what their reasoning is, but it seems likely that those unfortunate holders will loose their tokens. Not a good start for a blockchain that promised to prevent just that.
I wonder if this will finally hit the crypto public and what their reaction will be, after the have been blowing up the technical hiccups. Maybe they won't care, because to most code is still law, and they wont realize the botched start of EOS governance.
Update 19.6.2018: So the Ecaf has put out their first ruling, looks like the arbitration has been accepted and tokens can be freezed until we have a final ruling:
https://steemit.com/eos/@genereos/first-eos-arbitration-order
A clear explanation of the situation by Yves La Rose from EOS Nation.
I fear i have to disagree with the stated reasons for the non-ruling of the ecaf. The fact that the constitution is interim, can in now way be reason for its invalidity. That would be simply absurd. Interim doesn't mean theoretical only it means, its is only valid for a certain period in time, but valid nonetheless.
Thomas Cox explains it indepth in the latest EosRad.io show No 16
The issue isn't that the constitution is interim but 1) the issue originated from the ICO held on the Ethereum network, and 2) and more severely the fact that there is apparently no guarantee, that since arbitration is only valid if both parties agree to it, that we do have this consent in this case, as obviously this doesn't happen yet on the EOS chain (despite promises to do so), and also wont happen with the new constitution , although there would be a broader base for a ruling
I am with you, follow the constitution or throw it out.
The only saving grace here is that during the launch debacle, it was stated the current constitution was temporary and a 90 day review was going to happen.
Let’s hope this situation gets sorted and we can finally move forward the way it was it was intended.
It seems we've got a happy end...
Most nation states spend generations developing their judicial processes, EOS has been at it for a few months. Funny how quickly people lose perspective.
This is quite different, also many nations launch with a preliminary constitution, which is enforced. Anyhow this seems now solved for the time being.
You just received a 40.54% upvote from @honestbot, courtesy of @conceptskip!
