The governance of the blockchain is, in the final analysis, a political issue. Then, its political structure determines the development of the public chain.
Recently, with the EOS currency price plummeting, the problem of too much node power has been put on the table. According to the conspiracy theorists, China's capital has dominated EOS, so EOS has no future, and the black pot of the price of the money has to be smashed.
However, the shabu-shabu is a very simple matter. What is more important is to find out where the pot comes from. If Lu Xun is alive, he will think about the whole mode of EOS, instead of cursing the specific person.
- EOS status: 72% of applications involving gambling are listed as high-risk poems and distant places
- EOS leader discusses node consensus issues and triggers voting rights debate
- Research Report | How much is EOS going beyond ETH? (on)
- EOS is dead: Does EIDOS really kill EOS?
- BM will transfer the steem to the EOS. Is it good or false?
- 10 key words to give you a comprehensive understanding of Voice
Is there a problem with the EOS consensus?
“My goal in life is to find a free market solution to protect life, freedom and property” – Daniel Larimer (BM).
It is conceivable that American education was accepted from an early age, living in the Anglo-American representative government system, and the American fathers of Washington and Jefferson formed the basic value system. However, unlike Bitcoin and Ethereum's strong decentralization features, EOS's vision is the “commercial blockchain system,” which demonstrates that EOS requires both freedom and efficiency. In the end, the EOS consensus was designed to: compromise with the political logic of liberalism, and then achieve a balance to complete the self-governance of the community .
Blockchain, especially the public chain, is a typical decentralized pluralistic political system. EOS is designed to be a harmonious community autonomy logic, efficient business support, and a relatively complete contract system. Therefore, the cluster believes that EOS is very good at the consensus level.
The reality is very cruel under the good consensus
Community self-governance is the vision of EOS. However, the reality is not satisfactory. From the point of view of our interview node, the node reward for the middle node is about 326 EOS per day. According to the recent price of about 4 US dollars, the daily income is roughly 1,300 US dollars. Among them, the cost of the cloud server is taken as an example of the recommended node server when the EOS officially announces the node election. It uses the Amazon AWS EC2 host x1.32x Large type, has 128 core processor, 2TB memory, 2x1920GB SSD storage space, 25Gb network. bandwidth.
We know that the outbound node needs to maintain one primary server and one standby server, and the cost of such a node server is $13.338 per hour (excluding network bandwidth), and the operating cost per server for one primary and one standby is: 13.338 *24*2 = $640.
In addition, assuming that the node is run by three staff members, based on the average salary of the domestic IT industry, those familiar with HR work know that the social cost is about 130% of the salary, and the rough estimate of the labor cost is about 428 per day. Around the dollar, in addition, operating expenses such as office space are required.
The conclusion of our investigation is that the EOS block node is almost out of reach.
After arriving at this conclusion, since EOS is a "representative political system," the node is actually equivalent to "EOS cabinet members." As everyone knows, in Western countries, the three high-paying occupations are doctors, lawyers and journalists, and the salary of the civil service is not high. There are reports that the US Vice President’s salary in the 2019 fiscal year was $246,000. As such, an EOS node earns $475,000 a year ($4/EOS), which is appropriate for politicians/civil servants.
The employees around the US president are federal employees, and the president has 20 private employees in the White House. However, the problem with EOS nodes is that the node team is mostly around ten people. This is like a capitalist going to open a drip train. The position of the node is not enough to support a capital group. It can only support a "politician."
This is our second conclusion: node income is not enough to support large teams/companies/capital.
EOS's political structure vision
Human society has always been a division of labor and cooperation, doing their own duties, doing what they are best at, such as politicians in politics, capitalists doing business. In the case of division of labor and market competition, the EOS ecology will get better and better. As the Austrian economics advocates, the market will naturally operate as long as it provides a freely competitive environment.
The Austrian School of Economics advocates that governments/nodes reduce regulation, protect private property, and defend individual freedom. In their eyes, the government/node is more like creating a chaotic role, such as printing money to cause inflation.
Daniel Larimer is an American with a Western political ideology. His ideal governance structure model is liberalism, which leads to the design of EOS political model very similar to the Western representative government. The ideal structure of politics is :
1. Members (nodes) are divided into conservative/radical/central factions;
2. Voters (holding money holders) vote for a member according to their political inclinations;
3. Members decide “legislation” and the government/civil servant is responsible for implementation.
Based on this mature political model, we fit into the EOS governance system. EOS should be expressed as:
1. Retail investors/large households are voters;
2. The big capital is the “voting agent”;
3. The node is the executive civil servant.
It should be noted that although BlockOne has 10% of the votes, it does not have its own nodes. The logic is very simple: Bill Gates is rich, but is he the president? Has Zuckerberg been a senator?
An unmistakable rule is that under the Western political system, capital can support members of Congress who are consistent with their own ideas and interests . Zuckerberg supports the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but they will not "run the president or run for election." senator".
Then, in the political structure of EOS, the location of capital amnesty / Zuckerberg’s position should be a “voting agent” holding a large number of votes/political cash, rather than personally acting as a node, because all countries on the planet, Almost no support for "politicians directly involved in business operations", civil servants can not support a business, so "EOS node income can not support a capitalist business empire, can only support a politician."
Capital group with a large number of people, because the node income is not enough to support the team, under the pressure of the economy, it was forced to go down again to do DApp and do commercial development. This has led politicians to start doing business. It seems to be an initiative to contribute to the ecology. In fact, it is a helpless choice. This has even violated the basic political consensus that "politicians do not do business, and business does not govern."
We believe that the ideal political structure should be: Nodes/politicians must demonstrate their own political tendencies, such as supporting a larger deflationary ratio and supporting faster technological upgrades to prove that they are “Democratic radicals” and then capital Daxie chooses to vote for “Democratic Party or Republican Node” according to his own interests. Capital supports his own interests by supporting his “Members/Nodes”. This political structure is a well-tested representative system of politics.
The radicals demanded a reform of the inflation rate, and conservatives demanded protection of the interests of small investors. When politicians of different political tendencies have new ideas and strategies, they need to make political compromises and political transactions with each other.
These mature representative political systems require people with political talents. At present, we do not clearly see which node has legal or political achievements. This is a big shortcoming.
Under the efforts of BlockOne and BM, EOS was designed as a representative government system, but the reality is that EOS is currently controlled by Chinese capital. For Chinese people, this system of representative systems is too strange. The Chinese capital in EOS has involuntarily copied its authoritarian political ideas to EOS.
Under the authoritarian political system, the political philosophy of the home country, the node self-proclaimed as "parent officer / nanny", of course, this is not a derogatory, I personally believe that the nodes have great driving force for achievement, they are working hard every day, the world is flying Come fly to do propaganda, they can't wait for EOS to develop faster and better.
We all know that none of the world's dictatorships are exercising authority under the slogan of serving the people. The starting point of authoritarianism is: I am really for you, for everyone, for EOS.
However, behind these slogans, it is often labor-intensive and frustrated at a loss. This is not the fault of Chinese capital, but more like the conflict of civilizations and the disobedience of ideas.
This is like a curse. The node capitalists have spent a lot of money and paid a high price. As a result, they still can't please the people, and they are also criticized. In fact, history has proved countless times that it is most reasonable for everyone to take care of themselves.
The road ahead is long, where should we go?
Blockchain capital is a global capital. It is not a national capital, not a national capital. It does not have the traditional ideology of the past. A typical feature of global capital is that if the country's business environment does not work, it will change to a better country to develop.
In the blockchain world, if there is no node in line with my philosophy, selling coins is just that the governance system of a chain is not good, and capital will vote with the feet. This is a normal state. We can see from the decline in the price of the currency that some capital clearances are not playing. At present, the blockchain public chain is a very competitive market. The flow of funds is not regulated, the flow rate is very fast, and capital will not be sold to a certain chain.
Therefore, although the EOS consensus design is very good, due to the solidification of the Chinese capital ideology of the leading node, which leads to the rebellion of the ruling concept, the EOS governance has paid a price, which is the inevitable cost of the blockchain governance in the development process. It is also a clash of civilizations in the era of globalization.
(Author: Lipu Te Scripps Edward, Ph.D in finance, UBC, CA.)
Source: Nuclear Finance