Refusing to look at cases before being paid just looks like political gamesmanship to me.
Oh my lord. Firstly, cases are declined because of a due process. Secondly, it is highly unlikely that declining cases would put pressure on the community to change their ways or thoughts. Only a controversial ruling is likely to do that, and no case has delivered a ruling as yet.
Thirdly, it is the case that EOS victims are grudging supporters of ECAF's existence, but unrepentant grumblers of ECAF's speed.
BPCs all worked incredibly hard to showcase their worth to the community prior to being voted in - why isn't ECAF doing the same?
??? You do understand that this isn't TV trial time - Judge Judy and all that? A lot of cases have sensitivity, and they are not conducted as reality shows for the pleasure of the viewing audience.
The Arbitrator is required to keep mum about any running case, and communicate fairly with only the parties and assistants. Not to run around in chat rooms and say how worthy they are...
The point of maximum transparency is the ruling which has yet to be delivered in any case. Recent figures suggest AAA has average of 7 months. Yes, things have been slow, but yeah, everyone has day jobs too.
And how many standby BPs are being paid now?
RE: Proposal for an incremental Constitution and Dapp layer governance on EOS