A number of speculations have been made around the EOS and EOS ecosystem governance over the past week. This resulted in the remainder of a leak proving that China’s crypto-currency, Huobi, accepted donations to support certain voters in the EOS network, which contributed to the way decisions were taken in the project.
It seems that the EOS network has 21 block manufacturers, all of whom are selected to vote on decisions made in the EOS ecosystem. For a block producer, EOS coin payments are paid. The theory is that these block producers vote for other institutions such as Huobi.
Block.One, the team behind the EOSIO software, according to Coindesk, mentioned these claims:
We are aware of some unapproved claims regarding irregular block producer voting and the rejection of these claims. We believe that it is important to ensure a free and democratic election process within the EOS, and, as we see fit, we can vote together with the other owners to consolidate the integrity of this process. ”
Block.One seems to admit that this is happening, but at this stage they do not realize that this violates investor confidence and can of course be regarded as a violation of democracy, which the EOS claims to be a secret.
There’s still no official word from Huobi.
Is this a problem?
Many argue that block producers should not be allowed to vote for others. Actually as we know O buying a vote Block is actually banned in the EOS network, so why does Block.One allow?
There are other things to be aware of – this is against the ethos of EOS, the ethos that investors buy when they buy EOS tokens.
According to Coindesk:
Is it fair for EOS investors to vote for whom these 21 block producers have voted, and who will vote on who made the decisions, ie the decision-makers give indicators for other assets to vote? No, not at the same time very democratic.
As mentioned earlier, the voting procedure is actually illegal in EOS according to Coindesk:
EOS has a constitution that prohibits voting, but it has never been ratified. (It is not even possible to clarify what it means to release the software without agreeing on the rules.) The provisional constitution was brought together with the hope of a block producer pioneering the launch of the EOS. In his last article, although it is accepted that there is a temporary constitution until a new one is approved, there is no legitimate way to approve it, just as it is not justified. ”
What does it mean for EOS?
First, it clearly had no big impact on the value of EOS, which is a good thing. Nevertheless, it should be noted that many investors feel disillusioned and EOS can use it to justify a sale if it manages to move $ 10.00 again. You can’t really blame them, it’s just a kind of mistrust, but we can’t say that these findings are too democratic for a project that claims to be based on democracy, right?
He wrote: “There is little chance to influence which delegates the average elector has chosen… their incentives to vote for those who offer the highest and most credible bribery.”
At that time, he also observed that the tension that determines who will be a block producer eop has actually become another boundary of the US-China geopolitical economic war.
As Zamfir wrote on his blog:
”If a co-ordination mechanism is legitimate, people (rightly) will behave as a reality that people will use it.
Aurora in her own block was a block builder calling EOS.
“As long as the EOS uses more support and grows, the long-term success of the network will fight the forces that disrupt the long-term security of the network, such as voting manipulation.”
That is, if a decentralized community such as EOS is already fragmented, built-in incentives should encourage solutions to make the network successful.
As Zamfir writes: something will not be enough to vote.
In general, this is not a devastating problem.
A more detailed explanation or explanation from Block.One would go a long way to make this happen, even though EOS would improve. We also want to see an announcement from Huobi, at least to be given the chance to defend themselves.