Originally posted by Luka Percic.
Even quoted people are claiming heavy out-of-context quoting tactic by Brady, but let us take them at face value and respond to (many) silly claims.
Quoted sections are taken from the Coindesk article.
They indicate China, but that’s just a parameter they set. There is no way to check it, and many people say almost no BPs are located in china because of the risk associated with their government. Same as some BPs in the US rather deploy it elsewhere, to limit the exposure to SEC action.
Rent-seeking is how all PoW and PoS blockchains work. People put capital or buy miners to extract the rent. The fact there was a period where token holders were happily sent all rewards to BPs, should be seen as a gift. Now the chain is returning to normal, many token holders want their rewards back. There was around $52 Million of inflation rewards distributed in the first year; it’s questionable if the community saw more than (let’s say) $4M returned as an opensource code. Not being paid sux, but that’s not a failure of EOS in the slightest.
The “dapp” that runs its token contract on a single key is concerned about EOS inadequate governance. Spare us?♂️.
That’s outright lie and Heavy twisting of facts. The decision was voted on the referendum by 99% of all voting tokens. The burning was a huge win for “shared decision-making process”, and it substantially reduced the number of tokens that rent-seekers can extract.
If you call this “ investigation by CoinDesk” you should know the no-vote-buying rule is completely unenforceable (and what other PoS coins are calling ‘staking rewards’). Cmon, this is blockchain 101?♂️.
This is a lie. Vote exchange (which can offer 96% of the whole reward) was happening from day one. 4% was unlocked later, so even token holders without a BP could join the whale party (this democratized access to rewards).
Those were BPs who wanted to gain rewards for tools instead of rewarding voters. That’s a position, but there was no consensus, just a want. Remember, token holders decide, not founding BPs.
It’s fine. Some BPs might be a bit slower at times, but this is a blockchain. You know- fault tolerance and stuff?.
There is no requirement for lower-ranked BPs to shoulder that cost. Teams do it to gain support and votes, and if that’s not enough, they can start charging.
Basically, EDNA just admitted they don’t even run their own node! And not even that they were relying on a SINGLE BP to report the data! And adding more API’s for reliability (or checking if the first BP api is lying to them) is what they (and you, as a reporter!) consider an issue! This is some next level of cluelessness?.
They said they need 1.8 fork first (Sept 23). It’s not clear when it launches after that, but they did say something.
Disclaimer. EOSwriter does not endorse any content or product on this page. While we aim at providing you with all the important information we could obtain, readers should do their own research before taking any actions related to the company and carry full responsibility for their decisions, nor this article can be considered as an investment advice.