Main navigation

EOS.IO Creator Breaks Silence After Network Collapse

Wed, 11/13/2019 - 14:36
article image
Vladislav Sopov
After the recent EOS-based airdrop of a shady token, the issue of a network governance became really contentious. Today, made their voice heard.
EOS.IO Creator Breaks Silence After Network Collapse
Cover image via
Read U.TODAY on
Google News
Contents, the fintech team behind the EOS.IO blockchain, has issued their first public statement since the recent collapse of the EOS network. From the statement, few could have expected this kind of reaction. It's Time to Step In

With holding of 9.5% of the total EOS tokens in circulation, many individuals began to publicly participate in discussing ideas and proposals about upgrading the network. More importantly is the fact that will begin participating in block producer voting:

We now feel ready to begin playing our proportional role, with the focus of continuing to support healthy upgrades of the EOS network, the official statement says.

It's ironic and obvious that this forced decision by is characterized as an exciting milestone "marked by joining the EOS community in more actively furthering the iterative advancement of public blockchain development". Apart from the BP-voting participation, the only action that is clearly disclosed is the launch of the #EOSGOV hashtag on social media, allowing the public to share their suggestions on how to improve the EOS blockchain.

EOS (De)Centralization: New Page in History

We can say with certainty that the decision made by the EOS.IO leaders will be widely criticized as one more step to EOS network centralization. This story started a year ago when severe whale-dominated nature of EOS.IO blockchain was disclosed. 69 % of native tokens were controlled by 100 accounts in November, 2018.

EOS Is Even More Centralized Than You Think: Report

According to the Whiteblock Report, EOS acts not as blockchain, but as a cloud database, in which transactions may not be verified by cryptographical means. EOSians then reported the transactions, which were reversed by arbitrators.

The decision of to intervene in the block producer voting process is because of the EOS network cohesion, when the CPU capacity of users were overloaded by an airdrop.

Does it not look like someone tried to put on a good front? Let's discuss it in our Twitter!

article image
About the author

Blockchain Analyst & Writer with scientific background. 6+ years in IT-analytics, 3+ years in blockchain.

Worked in independent analysis as well as in start-ups (, Monoreto, Attic Lab etc.)