On October 22nd, a member of the Meet.one team, one of the EOS super nodes, issued a message denying the founding team to point to Block.one (BB) and the BM with the blockchain genius. The title of the article is "Block.one" In the content, the author explains the author as the most loyal fan of the community in both Chinese and English. He is extremely dissatisfied with the founding team's community governance. In the controversial blockchain project wave field (full of plagiarism genes, relying on Sun Yuchen's hype Survival) In contrast, the author believes that the founding team of EOS is far less than the founding team of the wave field.
Once the essay was issued, it was madly reprinted by the insiders. Of course, some of them were ridiculed by the masses, but more of the representative community of the article. The EOS community’s dispute is not accidental. It is a long-term backlog. The community users are overwhelmed and angry, and the entire community of EOS should make a deep reflection and correction. Otherwise, it will be a split of the community. The author claims that he has transferred the upgraded EOS Knight DAPP to the wave field public chain. .
- QKL123 market analysis | Bitcoin plummeted, "delivery day effect" pot? (0927)
- Getting started with blockchain | What is bitcoin? Explain with Pokémon cards
- Germany's second largest exchange has launched a fully regulated digital asset exchange, BSDEX is now trading
- You can buy Bitcoin in a cardboard box. You can do this simple DIY.
- PLA Newspapers and Magazines: Decoding the Military Application of Blockchain Technology
- CeFi and DeFi will inevitably be in a war, and the crypto economy and the traditional economy will eventually compete
The content of this article mainly talks about the EOS and the wave field public chain. The founding team has very little support for the excellent DAPP project parties, wallet party nodes, developers and most important users on these EOSIOs. It is the unity of various EOS communities.
In fact, this article only illustrates the problems that are reflected in the typical cases of community governance. It does not consider governance issues from the whole system. It can only vent emotions and will not give targeted advice to the community, even if there are some opinions. It is also unrealistic to solve a single link in the whole system, which is also irrational and requires a lot of money and manpower to solve.
From the perspective of the whole system, the consensus mechanism of the EOS public chain is DPOS (the entrusted equity certification mechanism), and it is also the core of its community governance. In simple terms, community users entrust their own EOS to the super node, allowing the super node to exercise its rights.
In order to facilitate the transaction, the general community users will put their EOS coins on the exchange, so that the exchange will have enough EOS, the cost will be used to use the equity, and the exchange will also earn the transaction fee. At the same time, in the EOS whole public chain system, there is also an incentive to participate in the governance, that is, the super node, mainly to distribute the rewards by the contribution of the block accounting, which means that the cost of the hardware configuration of the node is almost out, the exchange is almost You can enjoy the bonuses issued in the EOS system at zero cost, as well as the corresponding governance rights.
We can now pass the data, the top five of the super nodes are 4 exchange seats, and the other is the founding team Block.one, which can basically conclude that EOS's entire ecological governance is owned by the exchange. Spontaneously derived community nodes are not competitive at all (the cost of establishing node funds is high), which hinders the growth of the community and deprives a considerable number of teams of the kinetic energy of community participation, which is detrimental to the overall development of EOS.
Therefore, if the problems of the exchange are not well resolved, the future of EOS will be difficult to improve, at least for the community's resource allocation and community governance, there will always be hidden dangers.
Secondly, the EOS founding team did not do enough in the community incentives, and did not give appropriate incentives in the public chain system. When EOS ended its one-year fundraising in 2018, it was estimated to be about $4 billion, a significant portion of which was used by the founding team to buy US Treasury bonds and Bitcoin, compared to the community’s investment. Lack of it.
In fact, some applications such as non-spinach games on the public chain are difficult to make a difference, because in the case that the blockchain infrastructure is not yet popular, some applications need to consume a lot of money to support, we have not seen There are related support mechanisms in the EOS system; at the same time, the founding team does not provide funds for fundraising to support the ecology. For a time, the EOS ecosystem is hard to see the future. Of course, this incompleteness of the blockchain system incentive mechanism is not only a problem of EOS, but also a problem of all the public chains in the entire market, including Ethereum. Only the founder of Ethereum V God has realized this problem. In September, V God proposed a new scheme to motivate developers: some of the smart contract transaction fees will be used to fund the contract creator.
In summary, the EOS community governance model, incentive mechanism, etc., have been performing poorly over the past one year after the main online line. The transition to the currency price has been constantly innovating low, and EOS does need to pay attention to it, and the community. Users work together to improve this state of the present.
Source 丨莱道 blockchain (laidaoblockchain)