On May 17, EOS developer BM made a speech on the topic of "node voting" in the telegraph group. BM asks the community, where is the best analysis for who really controls 21 super nodes? Community members said they didn't know.
BM replied: "I don't care about daily voting/politics on EOS. But I am thinking, I want to protect EOS from collusion and ensure that the top 21 companies are independent entities, one vote one vote It is not enough. The user must be motivated to integrate the votes instead of spreading the votes in 30 nodes. This affects the voting effect, so that BP's reward is proportional to the number of votes ^x, and x must be greater than 1."
- Observations | Does everyone's concern about EOS come true?
- Twitter Featured: BSV soars 200%, EOS parent company brings 65 times earnings to investors
- Is the DeFi Throne of Ethereum really untouchable?
- Block.one is a social mutation, where will the ideal country of BM end up?
- BM: Why does the security of every company depend on the blockchain?
- EOS drops on the altar: millions of TPS have not been fulfilled, "VOICE" is silent
BM also said that the return of votes on a single BP must be greater than the vote to vote for multiple BPs, while the user can sort the votes, other BPs will not lose votes, which will force large players to make between profit and control. select.
After that, Block.one CEO BB Twitter posted a personal opinion: It is proposed that EOS can only vote for one node to ensure that the nodes are consistent with the wishes of the community.
BB forwards community friends Moon Maximalist's view of October 2018: If the vote is 1:1 instead of 30:1, BP will not collude.
BPs will only vote for themselves in a 1:1 ratio, but there will be incentives to exchange tickets for 30:1. Another problem is that the big 30:1 voting mechanism will be silent on multiple BPs (which can be understood as "not"); there are flaws in this aspect of governance design, but it is easy to fix. One vote and one vote will eliminate the phenomenon of exchange of tickets, and replace some BPs without having to dismantle the entire big league.
Without such a change, the current big alliance will not be broken due to insurmountable voting rights. (New Finance)