EOS governance disputes
Coin of the day is EOS.
After EOS mainnet launch (Jun 15) the price was sliding down, mainly due to confusions with EOS governance.
ECAF problems
On Jun 22 EOS block producers (BPs) have reportedly received an emergency order to refuse to process transactions for 27 accounts, according to a tweet by Ferdous Bhai(ferdousbhai) referring to Private Telegram groups for EOS BPs, his team was a block producer candidate:
The authorities in EOS just instructed the block producers to censor transactions from 27 accounts with no reasons given. “the logic and reasoning for this order will be posted at a later date"”
The unconfirmed screenshot of the ECAF (EOS Core Arbitration Forum) order notes that the accounts are to be frozen “pending further review of the claims by an Arbitrator,” and that the “logic and reasoning” for the order will be posted at a later date.
Sam Sapoznick, who signed the order as the ECAF Interim Emergency Arbitrator, describes himself as a “blockchain realist” on his LinkedIn with his most recent job listed as a landscaper at “Gardens From Here” for the last nine years. Neither the ECAF nor Sapoznick has commented on this.
For now, the main concerns of the EOS holders is that ECAF concentrates too much power and makes governance too centralized. Basically ECAF has demonstrated that they can block any accounts without any explenations. Also, the rules of dispute resolution stay not clear.
Comments from Reddit user:
“I have no idea who these arbitrators are, and even worse, the nomination to become an arbitrator is also centralized. These people have way too much power, and they should be rejected by the community. Luckily, thanks to the pre-existing EOS governance system, we have the power to veto their decisions with our block producer votes.
I am proposing that block producers come forward and identify themselves if they are willing to shut down the ECAF. It's the only way for EOS to be a decentralized platform. If you're already outside of the top 21 BP's, this could be a great way to separate yourself from the pack.”
From the Medium article by EOS New York (EOS block producer) on Jun 22:
“Because EOS New York is unable to verify any subsequent opinion of ECAF in a transparent and secure manner on-chain, we cannot with confidence execute any statement claiming to be an ECAF opinion. We will resume normal processing once communications can be established on-chain which such that they can be audited by both EOS New York and the community.
…
In other words, the idea is that each token-holder agrees to arbitration and furthermore agrees to the rules of arbitration as defined by ECAF. We’ve seen no official rules for dispute resolution from ECAF except what we’ve found as “proposed” from within the EOS Go forums”
Technicals
Descend of the price has stopped in the 0.0012 – 0.00125 zone. This zone coincides with the peak of the first growth wave of the EOSBTC price pattern. In vastly popular among traders Eliot waves theory we are in the fourth wave (downward correctional wave) now, and peak of the first wave should play a supportive role for this wave, at the worst – fourth wave have to turnaround before the half of the second (correctional wave after the first growing) and for this case the level is 0.001. So, according to overall pattern the price has reached a supportive zone, and if the team can sort out all problems with miners and governance, we could see a start of the new growth cycle. From the below, 0.0012 level stay solid to confirm the above theory.
After EOS mainnet launch (Jun 15) the price was sliding down, mainly due to confusions with EOS governance.
ECAF problems
On Jun 22 EOS block producers (BPs) have reportedly received an emergency order to refuse to process transactions for 27 accounts, according to a tweet by Ferdous Bhai(ferdousbhai) referring to Private Telegram groups for EOS BPs, his team was a block producer candidate:
The authorities in EOS just instructed the block producers to censor transactions from 27 accounts with no reasons given. “the logic and reasoning for this order will be posted at a later date"”
The unconfirmed screenshot of the ECAF (EOS Core Arbitration Forum) order notes that the accounts are to be frozen “pending further review of the claims by an Arbitrator,” and that the “logic and reasoning” for the order will be posted at a later date.
Sam Sapoznick, who signed the order as the ECAF Interim Emergency Arbitrator, describes himself as a “blockchain realist” on his LinkedIn with his most recent job listed as a landscaper at “Gardens From Here” for the last nine years. Neither the ECAF nor Sapoznick has commented on this.
For now, the main concerns of the EOS holders is that ECAF concentrates too much power and makes governance too centralized. Basically ECAF has demonstrated that they can block any accounts without any explenations. Also, the rules of dispute resolution stay not clear.
Comments from Reddit user:
“I have no idea who these arbitrators are, and even worse, the nomination to become an arbitrator is also centralized. These people have way too much power, and they should be rejected by the community. Luckily, thanks to the pre-existing EOS governance system, we have the power to veto their decisions with our block producer votes.
I am proposing that block producers come forward and identify themselves if they are willing to shut down the ECAF. It's the only way for EOS to be a decentralized platform. If you're already outside of the top 21 BP's, this could be a great way to separate yourself from the pack.”
From the Medium article by EOS New York (EOS block producer) on Jun 22:
“Because EOS New York is unable to verify any subsequent opinion of ECAF in a transparent and secure manner on-chain, we cannot with confidence execute any statement claiming to be an ECAF opinion. We will resume normal processing once communications can be established on-chain which such that they can be audited by both EOS New York and the community.
…
In other words, the idea is that each token-holder agrees to arbitration and furthermore agrees to the rules of arbitration as defined by ECAF. We’ve seen no official rules for dispute resolution from ECAF except what we’ve found as “proposed” from within the EOS Go forums”
Technicals
Descend of the price has stopped in the 0.0012 – 0.00125 zone. This zone coincides with the peak of the first growth wave of the EOSBTC price pattern. In vastly popular among traders Eliot waves theory we are in the fourth wave (downward correctional wave) now, and peak of the first wave should play a supportive role for this wave, at the worst – fourth wave have to turnaround before the half of the second (correctional wave after the first growing) and for this case the level is 0.001. So, according to overall pattern the price has reached a supportive zone, and if the team can sort out all problems with miners and governance, we could see a start of the new growth cycle. From the below, 0.0012 level stay solid to confirm the above theory.
Not
In Telegram channel EOSGov Dan Larimer confirms that they could consider changing the current constitution of the project.“Am I correct in understanding you’re proposing removal of the entire current constitution, and replacing it with one that only refers to arbs being able to rule on code VS intent and code vulnerabilities / hacks like DAO?” one member of the group asked Larimer, who replied “Yes.”
Overall, this changes could limit the power of ECAF in longterm perspective and could have a positive influence on price.
Nonetheless, such intentions caused a skeptic reaction as such talks to occur only in two weeks after mainnet launch.
Not
From recent post on Bitcoin.com"After coming under a lot of criticism lately over centralization, freezing accounts and other issues, EOS might soon get a serious makeover. Daniel Larimer, the creator of EOS, has proposed a major revision to the way its constitution works. He explains that this is because, he just now learned that, “if you give people arbitrary power to resolve arbitrary disputes then everything becomes a dispute and the decisions made are arbitrary. The more power the arbiter has, the more vicious and petty the disputes become and the less predictable the outcome.” Better late than never."
İlgili yayınlar
Feragatname
Bilgiler ve yayınlar, TradingView tarafından sağlanan veya onaylanan finansal, yatırım, işlem veya diğer türden tavsiye veya tavsiyeler anlamına gelmez ve teşkil etmez. Kullanım Şartları'nda daha fazlasını okuyun.
Feragatname
Bilgiler ve yayınlar, TradingView tarafından sağlanan veya onaylanan finansal, yatırım, işlem veya diğer türden tavsiye veya tavsiyeler anlamına gelmez ve teşkil etmez. Kullanım Şartları'nda daha fazlasını okuyun.