Is this really decentralized? Community announces the destruction of $ 132 million EOS, Block.one is unaware
The EOS.IO ecosystem recently announced the destruction of 34 million EOS tokens locked in savings accounts, reducing voting inflation through voting.
Source: Pixabay
EOS voters agree to destroy tokens for second time in a year
After the community's decision to abolish redundant assets, the EOS network implemented another $ 132 million in token destruction. In addition, supply growth (inflation) will be reduced from 5% per year set at the agreement level to 1% per year.
- Viewpoint | Does Blockchain Need Traffic Thinking?
- Babbitt Column | Can courts effectively penalize mining pools to roll back bitcoins to correct lost and stolen coins?
- Bitcoin has been hit hard for 14 hours and has fallen by 14%.
Brendan Blumer, co-founder and CEO of EOSIO software development company Block.One, said he was surprised. Apparently, the EOS community managed to vote on a proposal that Block.One didn't know about. The decision to reduce inflation has been around for the past few years, but finally has enough support from voters in 2020.
"Wow! I woke up today and found that it has been proposed to reduce the #EOS network inflation rate from 5% to 1% and passed by the community overnight. This fully illustrates the power of decentralized governance. Someone's design works in the best interest. "
Until recently, new tokens produced on the network each year were accumulated in the EOS.Saving account. After the community votes, the account will be emptied for destruction. From now on, new EOS tokens created each year will be distributed directly to producers without the need for storage.
At the same time, this is the second time that tokens in the EOS.Saving account have been emptied. In the spring of 2019, the account accumulated about the same amount and destroyed 34 million EOS tokens. Because idle accounts can be used for voting and other network activities, idle accounts are considered a potential tool for attacking consensus. Clearing our account also reminds us that, in general, EOS is not held indefinitely, and the network can seize coins that have been idle for three years. The community can also vote to suspend or freeze these idle accounts.
The EOS network continues to face degradation
The supply of EOS is now slightly higher than 1 billion tokens. Of this supply, 49.95% are locked in eosio.stake accounts, while other "whales" easily own 5% to 10% of the tokens. This vote on the destruction of EOS is mainly the work of large block producers and other voting whales.
The production of EOS tokens places a heavy burden on the network. Just on February 22, Coinbase announced that conditions on the EOS network have deteriorated and transmission speeds may slow down. However, the EOS network claims to have 68 million transactions per day, which is the highest capacity of any decentralized network.
After the altcoin crash on Wednesday, EOS was trading at $ 3.91. Such assets have recently managed to regain more than $ 4, but have retreated as almost all assets fell in the second half of February. Once again, people are enthusiastic about EOS and are also skeptical of critics because EOS has not fulfilled its promise.
We will continue to update Blocking; if you have any questions or suggestions, please contact us!
Was this article helpful?
93 out of 132 found this helpful
Related articles
- Analyst observations | What is the correlation between Bitcoin and other assets?
- Bitcoin ETF rejected, "crypto mom" accuses SEC of "switching standards"
- Interview with Crypto Mom SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce: Analysis of Safe Harbor Proposal
- DeFi is about to welcome zk-SNARK privacy technology without trust: what is Supersonic's solution?
- Bitcoin fell below $ 8,600 overnight, and the entire network exceeded $ 879 million
- "True Incense Law" is inevitable, Compound, the DeFi agreement, announced the issuance of governance token COMP to achieve a decentralized governance process
- Ethereum community members launch petition against ProgPoW, questioning its validity