EOS Made It To The Headlines For All The Wrong Reasons Again

EOS Made It To The Headlines For All The Wrong Reasons Again

EOS is definitely making headlines in recent weeks for all the wrong reasons. Apart from having all kinds of problems with its migration from Ethereum to its mainnet, the company behind EOS is also considering participating in the voting process.

Is EOS Starting All Over Again?
EOS Hosts A Handful Of Popular dApps
Tron Launched Mainnet On May 31

EOS is definitely making headlines in recent weeks for all the wrong reasons. Apart from having all kinds of problems with its migration from Ethereum to its mainnet, the company behind EOS is also considering participating in the voting process.

The news was announced by Block.one itself. And an excerpt of the text reads:

“As a recipient of 10 [percent] of the initial EOS token allocation, Block.one recognizes its responsibility to participate as an active minority voting member. As such, our approach has been carefully considered, and Block.one will soon begin allocating votes to block producers that share the core values necessary to maximize the integrity and potential of the EOS public blockchain network.”

Curiously, the founder of EOS Daniel Larimer said that he is proposing a new governance model. Currently, the network operates within the delegated proof-of-stake algorithm. There are 21 “decentralized bodies” or block producers if you like. They are usually elected by the rest of the community members. These 21 have full control over the network, which is why Larimer thinks EOS needs a constitutional update.

There is something wrong with this model as only 30% of the EOS Tokens are involved in the voting process. This allows the block producers to further extend their power over the network. However, if block.one steps in it will account for additional 25% staked since the company owns 100 million EOS (10% of the total supply). In case the EOS community remains such low levels of activity the governance model can become even more centralized.

Notably, last week Daniel Larimer insisted the governance model needs to change. Moreover, Block.one promised to refrain from voting in an effort to decentralize the system. Obviously, the brains behind the project have the opposite stance now.

One thing is for sure, the company pulling the strings is unable to set on a solid ground. Since the end of M,ay it changed its view on EOS a million times, it drafted a constitution, later it proposed a change, and now it proposes another change. Our wish was that block.one decides what are its priorities once and for all for the sake of the community it established.