Governance does not equate to fairness. We could easily have Governance in favour of the strong or those in control of making and changing the rules.We are all born "good", with a consensus notion of what is "Fair". Basically we all know the difference between right and wrong and good and bad. It is the basic tenet of "Do unto others ----- ". While there are times when the few that differ from these standard norms may hold the sway, in time, the view of the majority always prevails, and ultimately we will arrive at the right path.
Bitcoin introduced to us the concept of truth and immutability. For the first time we can embedded 'a factual truth' into a blockchain and nobody will be able change it. The concept of, code is law, was born. For the first time a contract could be executed exactly in the way the contracting parties intended and no law or judge could alter the way the code executes. The path towards immutable smart contracts and notary functions on the blockchain was in full swing.
Then the DAO hack happened. 300 million dollars in Ethereum were stolen by a "clever" coder who in his defence said that he did nothing wrong as the code executed exactly as it was designed. Yes designed but not intended. Clearly this was not fair, thus the developers of the Ethereum chain rolled back the transactions and thus broke the law of immutability of the blockchain. ( actually perhaps because most of the money stolen belong to them! )
But is immutability really that great a feature. Sure it takes away the abuses of the middleman but it also leaves behind a plethora of cases of loss from unintended consequences.
1) Loss of funds through loss of passwords
2) Loss of funds from fraud and security hacks
3) Loss of funds through errors in program codes
In a worst case scenario we could roll back the blockchain but this may also include all the innocent real and correct transactions within that time period as well.
Selective transaction reversal
EOS introduces the concept of selective transaction reversal. At any time if 15 of the 21 block producers agree, they can freeze and/or reverse a transaction. They become in effect the police and executors of transactions on the blockchain.
However they can only do so at the direction of the ECAF. What prevents them from acting on their own and in their own interest is the wrath of the community. Their position as one of the 21 block producer is continually "on review".
This chart on the producer vote summary is interesting. At the time of writing 26% have voted and we are starting to see the dominance of the small voters block (blue). Clearly this faction will be bigger than any whale or collusion of whales when the whole community exercise their right to vote.
This is the brilliance of the EOS system. The block producers with all their power can only exercise them with the tacit consent of the community. They have to hold themselves to the highest level of conduct, and to be seen as continuous positive contributors to the community or they will be removed by the community. There will be no nonsense like the recent censorship and years of protracted argument as in Bitcoin. The EOS ecosystem will adapt and change quickly.
We all want to live in a world where the people we elected to wield power over us are actually nice to us. This is only true in the EOS ecosystem. I guarantee that you will never see a block producer overtly expressing his or her own bias and prejudices in public. Yes deep down we are all bias and prejudice to some degree, but in the EOS ecosystem you have to keep them in check if you ever wish to hold any position of power and authority.
This underlying tenet driving all of us to behave "correctly" is what will make for a fair and equitable community. I have never seen EOS supporters speak ill of any other communities. What a breath of fresh air. What a change to look forward to. This will bring in the crowd. The silent majority.