Coindesk EOS FUD fest

Brady Dale wrote the article Everyone’s Worst Fears About EOS Are Proving True.

Even quoted people are claiming heavy out-of-context quoting tactic by Brady, but let us take them at face value and respond to (many) silly claims.

“As of this writing, a majority of the BPs indicate their locations as within China. Sources tell CoinDesk that multiple others are also located in China despite outward appearances.”

They indicate China, but that’s just a parameter they set. There is no way to check it, and many people say almost no BPs are located in china because of the risk associated with their government. Same as some BPs in the US rather deploy it elsewhere, to limit the exposure to SEC action.

“I can’t help but think that’s the new trend. This downward spiral (which ultimately is just a race to the bottom) isn’t a good situation to be in, as rent-seekers continue to take over. And if it continues will probably become direr as more of us are cut off.”

Rent-seeking is how all PoW and PoS blockchains work. People put capital or buy miners to extract the rent. The fact there was a period where token holders were happily sent all rewards to BPs, should be seen as a gift. Now the chain is returning to normal, many token holders want their rewards back. There was around $52 Million of inflation rewards distributed in the first year; it’s questionable if the community saw more than (let’s say) $4M returned as an opensource code. Not being paid sux, but that’s not a failure of EOS in the slightest.

Greg Simpson built EDNA, which is designed to enable users to monetize their genetic information, with the original EOS in mind. EDNA is a decentralized application (or dapp) running on the software Block.One created.

But these days he’s hedging by using EOS and its two main forks, Telos and Worbli, because of uncertainty about EOS due to what he perceives as inadequate governance.

The “dapp” that runs its token contract on a single key is concerned about EOS inadequate governance. Spare us🤦‍♂️.

One of the first consequences of EOS’s failure to agree upon a shared decision-making process was the burning of approximately $167 million in the EOS savings account that had been designated for the worker proposal system.

That’s outright lie and Heavy twisting of facts. The decision was voted on the referendum by 99% of all voting tokens. The burning was a huge win for “shared decision-making process”, and it substantially reduced the number of tokens that rent-seekers can extract.

What’s notable about the EUA is what it doesn’t address: in particular, vote-buying. The interim constitution explicitly forbids vote-buying but the EUA is silent on the topic.

If you call this “ investigation by CoinDesk” you should know the no-vote-buying rule is completely unenforceable (and what other PoS coins are calling ‘staking rewards’). Cmon, this is blockchain 101🤦‍♂️.

“EOS was one of the few DPoS blockchains where [vote-buying] wasn’t happening until earlier this year with the introduction of the EUA. Many (maybe the majority?) other DPoS blockchain operate under this model, some even with it baked right into their protocols.”

This is a lie. Vote exchange (which can offer 96% of the whole reward) was happening from day one. 4% was unlocked later, so even token holders without a BP could join the whale party (this democratized access to rewards).

There was a consensus among those who participated in the launch of the blockchain that a BP should be reinvesting in EOS.

Those were BPs who wanted to gain rewards for tools instead of rewarding voters. That’s a position, but there was no consensus, just a want. Remember, token holders decide, not founding BPs.

Some sources hint that there have been bad signs for the fundamental performance of the blockchain. Others say everything is mostly fine.

Its fine. Some BPs might be a bit slower at times, but this is a blockcahin. You know- fault tolerance and stuff🙄.

“Subjectively, it feels wrong that the lower-ranked BPs are the one shouldering this cost,” he wrote, while also noting that a good API requires hardware and skill to run, such that even well-funded BPs may not be equipped to run one.

There is no requirement for lower-ranked BPs to shoulder that cost. Teams do it to gain support and votes, and if that’s not enough, they can start charging.

EDNA’s Simpson told CoinDesk that the unreliability of some BPs required EDNA to revise its code so it checked more than one API, for when some weren’t operational or when blocks were dropped.

Basically, EDNA just admitted they don’t even run their own node! And not even that they were relying on a SINGLE BP to report the data! And adding more API’s for reliability (or checking if the first BP api is lying to them) is what they (and you, as a reporter!) consider an issue! This is some next level of cluelessness😳.

Perhaps most tellingly, Block.One itself has yet to launch (or really say anything more about) the service it announced in June

They said they need 1.8 fork first (Sept 23). It’s not clear when it launches after that, but they did say something.

In conclusion

🤷‍♀️