Rumors circulating the world-wide-web suggest that EOS may just be facing a scandalous situation involving an illicit mutual voting partnership, led by Chinese cryptocurrency exchange Huobi. EOS became one of the most key and high performing blockchains in the world. However, the platform’s parent company Block.one readily admits that EOS has suffered a number of setbacks since launching in June. Block.it makes me wonder published a totally new?Medium post?addressing the growing evidence that your EOS blockchain governance model happens to be corrupted.
Concerns surrounding EOS begun to come to a head yesterday evening when EOSONE posted what is definetly a leaked Huobi spreadsheet in a very blogpost on WeChat. If authentic, the spreadsheet reaffirms previous accusations created by EOSONE that the EOS blockchain’s major Block Producers have formed a collaborative alliance led by among the world’s largest crypto exchanges, Huobi. This potentially brings the integrity within the entire EOS blockchain into question. The spreadsheet includes tables titled “node mutual voting table” and “node income statement”.
Block.one’s new content, signed by company CEO Brendan Blumer, doesn’t deny these claims, but says, for right now, that all evidence has not verified:
“We are now aware of some unverified claims regarding irregular block producer voting, together with the subsequent denials of the people claims. All of us it is important to ensure a free of charge and democratic election process within EOS and can, as we deem appropriate, vote along with other holders to strengthen the integrity about this process.”
Meanwhile, a Twitter account of Maple Leaf Capital has noted a correlation in voting between Huobi and the suspected BP’s operating in the mutual voting ring.
The complete report by Maple Leaf can be obtained here. Case study points out that Huobi voted for 25 other BP candidates, and 16 individuals candidates voted for Huobi. The documents supplied by EOSONE show potential evidence for recorded payoffs for these particular voting exchanges.
“Huobi votes for eosiosg11111, cochainworld, and eospaceioeos so they could earn 170, 150, and 50% belonging to the returns respectively…” writes Maple Leaf. “As a possible EOS token holder myself, I view such action with utter disgust, and there’s reason why our Mapleleafcap proxy only votes for just a very selective range of Chinese BPs.”
CoinTelegraph reports that further potential evidence presented by Maple Leaf implies that mutual voting has also been done through recent promotion in the Huobi Pool Token , which shared tokens with users family pet locking their EOS on Huobi. Maple Leaf believes that Huobi may just be planning to use those tokens for future votes within the EOS platform.
This would oppose Article IV within the EOS Constitution in the title “No Vote Buying”, which reads:
“No Member shall offer nor accept anything of benefit in exchange for a vote regardless of the sort, nor shall any Member unduly influence the vote of one other.”
Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of rival Dapp platform Ethereum, taken care of immediately the Maple Leaf Capital’s Twitter thread stating,
Interesting! I am, it was completely predictable i did predict it, but I didnrrrt expect it to happen so thoroughly thus soon!@VladZamfir https://t.co/InylvvzHFm
— Vitalik Non-giver of Ether September 29, 2019
Buterin took to make the case that recent events suggest larger issues pertaining to the structuring for the EOS governance model.
As a followup, *this* cause I do not believe in coinholder-voted on-chain treasuries. Any chain where coinholder-voted on-chain issuance is required to supposedly fund public goods can certainly collapse into this specific "I elect your crappy project, you vote for mine" equilibrium. https://t.co/ooAyuZRf3s
— Vitalik Non-giver of Ether September 29, 2019