最有看点的互联网金融门户

最有看点的互联网金融门户
区块链国际资讯

花光还是销毁?这个持有价值3500万美元代币的EOS账户该怎么用

区块链国际资讯

花光还是销毁?这个持有价值3500万美元代币的EOS账户该怎么用

EOS区块链上有一个账户,目前持有着价值3500万美元的代币。现阶段任何人都无法接触这笔资金——账户余额依然在不断增加。

EOS主网上线满1年之后,这个账户(eosio.saving)将持有价值约1.92亿美元的币。

理论上说,这笔资金应该用在所有对EOS社区有利的事:例如开发新的技术功能、进行安全审计、资助线下活动、雇用律师和推广人员。

但问题就在于:目前没有一个专门的系统可以用来分配这笔资金。

自6月份上线以来,EOS主网始终不太完善,其宪法和白皮书中承诺的很多功能都尚未实现。EOS白皮书中提到,该项目的关键在于提供了“一个明确的治理过程”,那么其它区块链可能遇到的争议性治理问题就不会影响到EOS,其也不必承担一些难以预料的后果。

EOS的治理过程包括赋予代币持有者投票的权力,但这个投票流程尚未正式开启,因此,EOS的治理体系一直处于不断的变化之中。

这个公投系统似乎是eosio.saving账户资金用途问题的核心。

EOS白皮书中并未提到公投,但其宪法明确规定,对于一些影响到整个网络的决定,需要有一个决策的过程,例如建立一个系统来花费eosio.savings的账户资金。另外,社区同样需要一场公投来确定宪法内容,目前的宪法依然是临时的。

EOS Nation的联合创始人Daniel Keyes提到了如何推动EOS的发展:

主网上线的时候并不存在公投系统,因此社区是时候行动起来,共同建立这样的一个系统了。

Keyes目前还担任项目经理一职,这个由BP(区块生产者)候选者组成的团队正在搭建一个公投系统。与此同时,EOS Core WPS Working Group团队正在研发一个提案系统(WPS)。EOS白皮书中早就提出了这个机制,用于提交提案,并允许代币持有者投票决定eosio.saving账户是否应该资助这些提案。

该团队已经发布了WPS的后端代码。不过,WPS代码的最终命运必须通过一币一票的投票方式决定,因此该团队还需要等到公投系统准备就绪。

花光派:EOS发展急需资金

话虽如此,但随着社区对eosio.saving资金用途的分歧越来越大,WPS显得越来越重要了。

尽管包括WPS团队在内的很多人都希望这笔钱能够用在对社区有利的地方,但也有不少人呼吁社区不必理会WPS,销毁eosio.saving的所有资金。

这个账户中的资金之所以不断在增加,是因为EOS自带的通胀机制。每年EOS都会增发5%,其中五分之四的资金会自动打入这个账户。这个过程自EOS协议上线以来就已经存在。

WPS团队建议从这个账户中转出100万个EOS(约480万美元),用于资助一些重要的项目,例如EOS仲裁组织(负责解决代币持有者之间的争端)、安全测试以及WPS的在线入口。

他们还希望能够成立一个“紧急事务委员会”来评估项目提案,而且承诺一旦“紧急”状况过去,就会解散这个委员会。这个委员会通过的提案会交给代币持有者投票(这个过程和公投类似,但对参与者的代币持有量要求较低)。

EOSYS的社区建设者Orchid Kim同时也是WPS团队的一员,她认为创建这个公投机制并且把这些资金合理分配给各个项目才能让EOS不负众望。

我们不应该依赖Block.one、BP和志愿者。

Block.one在BM的领导下负责研发EOS协议的代码,并募集了40亿美元,但他们从未参与主网上线的过程。Kim表示:

启动去中心化的流程是一项复杂且艰巨的任务,需要搭建并修复很多东西。

销毁派:一币一票并不公平

有些社区成员则反对Kim的观点,认为EOS应该放弃WPS以及代币通胀。Block.one CEO Brendan Blumer就是其中之一。

上月底,有网友在推特指出,每年增发代币的1%分给超级节点根本不够。因此,他担心那些持有大量代币的节点会通过WPS合约,把自己的奖励增加到4%。

“我们已经见识过投票系统是怎么运作的了,”另一位网友说,很多持币量较大的用户会投给排名靠前的BP,这样就能减少他们的付出。

超级节点的投票系统早就开始正常运行了。其投票形式是一币一票的,因此EOS社区内外的人都认为持币量较大的账户能够左右投票结果。这位网友指出:

彻底放弃WPS才是唯一的最佳方案。

Kim说,EOS Core WPS团队也意识到了社区的担忧,因此为了保护系统设置了很多制约机制。举个例子,他们提议销毁eosio.saving账户里一半的代币。

无论如何,这个问题似乎马上就要得到答案了。Keyes透露,他们正在测试公投产品(MVP),最快可在下周开始投票。距离这个公投系统的正式推出也不远了。

WPS并不是唯一的话题中心,关于EOS宪法的争议也从未停止。目前,EOS宪法依然是“临时的”,因为并未经过公投。

因此,Keyes再次强调了公投系统在解决EOS长期遗留问题方面的重要性:

这个提案基金每天能够收到100万美元,但我们什么都做不了;我们的宪法是临时的,就算人们有意修改也无从下手,因此我们需要有一种方式能让这些流程回归市场。

There's an account on the EOS blockchain with $35 million worth of tokens in it that no one can touch – and its balance is growing constantly.

At the end of EOS' first 12 months as a live blockchain, this account (called eosio.saving) will be worth close to $192 million, assuming the recent EOS market price of $4.79.

In theory, that money is being set aside to fund all sorts of initiatives that might be beneficial to the EOS community: building out new tech features, conducting security audits, sponsoring meetups, hiring lawyers and lobbyists.

But there's one problem: there's currently no system in place to actually allocate the funds.

The EOS blockchain network was incomplete when it went live in June, with much of the functionality stipulated in the network's "constitution" and white paper remaining unbuilt. A key aspect of the EOS protocol was, according to the white paper, "a defined governance process" which avoided other blockchains' "ad hoc, informal, and often controversial governance processes that result in unpredictable outcomes."

That governance process included the ability for token holders to vote in referenda based on the number of tokens they held. But that process of voting doesn't exist yet, and as such, EOS' governance system has been in flux since launch.

The referendum system, as the voting mechanism is known, seems to be at the heart of the question about where the eosio.saving money will eventually go.

While the white paper doesn't mention referendum voting, the EOS constitution explicitly requires the process for making decisions that affect the entire network, like setting up a system to spend the eosio.savings account funds. Also, in a twist of circular logic, a referendum is needed to ratify the still-provisional constitution itself.

Highlighting what needs to be done to push EOS forward, Daniel Keyes, the co-founder and COO of EOS Nation, a standby block producer, told CoinDesk:

"There was no referendum system built in at launch, so it's up to us as a community to come together and build that."

And moving on that advice, Keyes is acting as project manager for a team composed of different block producer candidates, who are working together to build the referendum system.

At the same time, a group known as the EOS Core WPS Working Group is developing the "worker proposal system" or WPS, a mechanism described in the EOS white paper that would be used to submit proposals and allow token holders to vote on whether to fund them using tokens from the eosio.saving account.

And already, the working group has published the back-end code for the WPS. Although, as mentioned, the WPS code must be approved in a one-token, one-vote referendum, so the working group is waiting for the referendum system to be put in place.

Spend it

That said, the WPS carries added significance now as the EOS community is split on what to do with the funds.

While some, including members of the working group, would like to see the money used for the benefit of the community, prominent voices are urging the community to scuttle the WPS, remove its source of funding, and perhaps "burn" or destroy all the tokens currently held in the eosio.saving account.

Stepping back, the money currently accruing in the savings account is funded by "inflation," which in this context refers to a predictable increase in the total supply of EOS tokens.

Every year, the supply rises by 5 percent, and four-fifths of that increase automatically goes into the account. This process is made possible by a funding mechanism that was coded into the EOS protocol at launch.

With that, the working group suggested in a recent blog post that one million EOS tokens (around $4.8 million) be transferred out of the eosio.saving account and used to fund high-priority projects like the EOS arbitration body – which rules on disputes among token holders – security tests, and an online portal for the WPS.

They also want to set up an "emergency committee" to assess project proposals, though they promise to dissolve the committee once the "emergency" situation has passed. Proposals approved by the committee will then be put up for votes by token holders (these will be similar to referenda, but have a lower minimum threshold for token holder participation).

According to Orchid Kim, a community builder at the block producer candidate EOSYS and a member of the working group, creating the referendum voting mechanism and allocating the savings to future projects is the only way "for EOS to live up to its expectations."

"We should not rely on Block.one, the block producers or continued volunteerism," she continued.

Block.one is the company headed by Dan Larimer that developed the code behind the EOS protocol and conducted the $4 billion ICO, but did not participate in the network launch.

Kim concluded:

"Bootstrapping any decentralized process is a complicated and daunting task. There are many things to build and fix."

Burn it

Some community members disagree with Kim, though, arguing that EOS should ditch the WPS and the token inflation that funds it. Most notably, Block.one CEO Brendan Blumer endorsed this view in late July.

At the time, Blumer was responding to a Twitter user's observation that "even with the wonders of compounding," the 1 percent inflation that top block producers – those that verify transactions on the network – divvy up among themselves, might seem insufficient.

As such, the user expected "whale" block producers –those that hold a large number of tokens – to go after the larger 4 percent inflation by awarding WPS contracts to themselves.

"We already saw how the voting system works," another user commented on Reddit, referring to the perception that whales vote friendly block producers into the top spots in exchange for a cut of the earnings.

Unlike the referendum system, the voting system for electing block producers is already in place. Because the system is based on the one-token-one-vote approach, many of those both inside and outside the EOS community see accounts with large numbers of tokens as determining the outcomes of votes.

The user then added: "Getting rid of [the WPS] completely is the only best option."

Yet Kim said that EOS Core WPS Working Group members "recognize the fears that some in the community have" and have put in place numerous checks and balances to safeguard the system.

For example, the working group proposes burning half the tokens in the eosio.saving account on an ongoing basis.

It's likely that the situation will come to a head soon, though, since Keyes told CoinDesk that testing on a minimum viable product for making referendum proposals and conducting votes could begin as soon as next week. The full rollout of the implementation will follow sometime after that.

Much like the debate around the WPS, there remains a continued debate around the EOS constitution, which is currently in "interim" status because it has not been ratified through a referendum (again, there is no referendum mechanism available on EOS right now).

As such, Keyes underscored the importance of using the new referendum system to solve EOS' lingering questions, telling CoinDesk:

"We've got this worker proposal fund collecting a million dollars a day that we can't do anything with, we've got an interim constitution that people are eager to make changes to, so we want to get something to market as soon as possible."


用微信扫描可以分享至好友和朋友圈

扫描二维码或搜索微信号“iweiyangx”
关注未央网官方微信公众号,获取互联网金融领域前沿资讯。

发表评论

发表评论

您的评论提交后会进行审核,审核通过的留言会展示在下方留言区域,请耐心等待。

评论

您的个人信息不会被公开,请放心填写! 标记为的是必填项

取消

监管风暴下的币圈百态

余继超 | 国际金融报 15小时前

僵尸时代到来?90%的数字货币毫无交易量,变成僵尸币

一本财经 21小时前

区块链概念股大盘点:热点蹭得好,股票就能涨?

0x20 | 区块律动(... 1天前

中本聪式的区块链,资本书写的墓志铭

孟永辉 1天前

区块链应用,“反洗钱”边界在哪里?

肖飒 | 大成律师事... 09-15

版权所有 © 清华大学五道口金融学院互联网金融实验室 | 京ICP备17044750号-1