What a strange way Dan Larimer has gone about the ‘peer review process’. Make a bunch of random code screened and tested by a bunch of random groups, the crowd source the debugging process.
Good job by the EOS team on the fundraising process, but it was all down hill from there. I have no idea how on Earth they have the market cap EOS is at right now.
Agree, but the reality is that EOS seems to be quite popular with investors and nothing, even serious bugs/flaws in their code, negatively affects the price of the coin. This is either a sign of a strong community or a relentless effort by block.one to prop up prices to maintain their aura. I don’t know.
It is the only coin I know that has had a relentless uphill climb in price for the last 3 months. All other coins have stumbled in that same time frame.
There must be something to be learned from how they achieved the market cap.
I tend towards the second option. Blatant wash trading. Volume has been unusually high for some time now. With their billions raised in ETH they have the financial power to do whatever they want by artificially inflating volume to attract investors and generate momentum. It’s illegal. Apparently the CFTC is investigating several coins besides Bitcoin.
Here is one example of their money trail from their address to the Bitfinex platform from 6 months ago, and it has become more obvious this spring
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/7e7bnf/eos_are_wash_trading_to_fake_volume/
Thanks, @CosmosX. This would explain a lot…
Get a paper wallet. Daedalus has a paper wallet now. Store your coins offline in a paper wallet.
Do the 21 super nodes store ALL the information in perpetuity like in blockchain? How big are the blocks?
I guess most EOS investors were salivating at TPS figures and " Etherum killer " but didn’t bother to consider the trade-off of security.
This is what the future looks like, this is what “blockchain governance” looks like:
A piece of paper signed by a dude, ordering nodes to do stuff.
This is the DAO we deserve.
Hey, that looks like handwritten characters from the old millennium.
I just want it to be here for the history.
“This Arbitrator Order is retroactive to the time(s) of the Block Producers’ first actual refusal to process transactions for the listed EOS accounts and public keys.”
“The logic and reasoning will be posted at a later date”
Signed: some dude
sounds awfully familiar (Soviet style ruling)… Can’t believe they grew up in the US.
The best part is that ECAF is not even a voted authority yet, along with “Sam the Signature” there. It is literally a centralised company that has announced to people the list of arbitrators that were supposed to be voted in by stakeholders, but the vote has not yet happen, from what I know (Sam was allegedly “elected” by top 21 BPs to be an interim arbitrator). So what happening is: a single centralised non-elected authority orders its decisions to all the nodes and the nodes follow which is basically a collusion of all top BPs to act in secret along with the ECAF (the order is retroactive). I don’t see why stakeholders would matter in that scheme.
P.S. Btw, everything is cool, because anyone can be an arbitrator at ECAF, with a small simple requirement of being “nominated by someone known to the ECAF”.
Power corrupts, i hear.
Believe it, my friend. There is an army of them that grew up in the US and are 100% for this type of measure even when they only make perceived gains from it.
This is one of the reasons I believe Ethereum was not abandoned after rewriting history in response to the DOA “DAO”.
What is the point of blockchain programmability with so-called Turing completeness, when code is not verified - an absolute guarantee with unverified code even from highly reputable parties - and history is rewritten according to the whim of a handful of powerful individuals? Nonetheless, it seems to work quite well for pump and dump tokens including the EOS tokens which have provided an insane amount of pre-product money to a few people. Even if these people are ultra principled people, their focus is gone because it is just too much money for future work by a group. Too much pressure and too great of a likelihood that the person next to you defects and the whole thing fails to deliver on the promises even if you as an individual take it as seriously as possible and work nonstop. If it was up to a single ultra-principled individual, I would make the argument that it is possible that money can never change that and the individual will still deliver but that argument is impossible with groups of people. Yet again, another unsolvable problem created as a descendant of the decision to allow Ethereum to persist by revising history; And the many people who cheered for it…
Good observations. There is a widely held misconception that Block.one’s $4B will somehow help them improve the network in the future. The trouble is that, they have already legally declared that $4B their revenue from donations. Its not an investment and no one can expect anything in return past EOS’s launch. I think even Novogratz has that misconception, perhaps because he owns some tokens…
But anyway, if I were Block.one i would feel off the hook and move on to better things… because legally they all can.
This is a critical point that most EOS token holders seem to be surprisingly blind to. Nevertheless, Block.one might actually throw some change around for appearances, but nothing remotely close to 0.1B, let alone $4B… Just recently they offered $10K for anyone finding bugs in their code, when this was clearly a low ball number. They ended up spending 10 times that, but it just goes to show how much they were willing to spend.
Absolutely. I think EOS is class-action lawsuit waiting to happen. The founders are probably going to jail.
