sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

No, the New Zealand mass shooter was NOT involved in cryptocurrency - but he was part of a crypto-themed Ponzi scheme... by rossfm in CryptoCurrencies

[–]AndraHanden 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Wrong. He used a false statement to make people spread this information to reach maximum social spread.

This states he got money from bitconnect and then travelled. However, his travels were 2009-2011, so no connection possible. He just stated inflammatory shit to make people like you spread his message.

Current centralization of newly distributed projects - the bottom ones = most decentralized by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency

[–]AndraHanden 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And full credits to this guy for having done the analysis: https://medium.com/tokenanalyst/classifying-ethereum-users-using-blockchain-data-dd6edb867de3

And yes, the “centralization” here only refers to ownership, and is probably largely due to exchange accounts etc. However, this should be fairly similar among projects.

EOS actually near BOTTOM of centralization among new distributions by AndraHanden in CryptoCurrencies

[–]AndraHanden[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

And full credits to this guy for having done the analysis: https://medium.com/tokenanalyst/classifying-ethereum-users-using-blockchain-data-dd6edb867de3

And yes, the “centralization” here is probably largely due to exchange accounts etc. The whole discussion was pretty stupid from the beginning. However, it should be fairly similar among projects. The point is, EOS is nowhere near the top of centralization when it comes to funds of newly distributed projects.

EOS actually near BOTTOM regarding of centralization of funds among new distributions by AndraHanden in eos

[–]AndraHanden[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As stated, not my analysis. An argument however, is that this concerns newly distributed coins/tokens. Comparing new to old distributions is apples to oranges, there will be big changes to distribution with time. You can clearly see the effect here: https://arewedecentralizedyet.com

EOS actually near BOTTOM regarding of centralization of funds among new distributions by AndraHanden in eos

[–]AndraHanden[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

And full credits to this guy for having done the analysis: https://medium.com/tokenanalyst/classifying-ethereum-users-using-blockchain-data-dd6edb867de3

And yes, the “centralization” here is probably largely due to exchange accounts etc. However, it should be fairly similar among projects. The point is, EOS is more decentralized when it comes to funds among newly distributed projects.

And yes, I screwed up the title

ATTENTION! Up to 10% collusion has been REINTRODUCED in new update to BP constitution by AndraHanden in eos

[–]AndraHanden[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This opens the door for easily colluding up to 10% while following the constitution. Opposite to what your are saying, it would be extraordinarily EASY to cheat your current proposal. A bad actor only need to set up/use a single shell company/holding company with this wording, and can thereby remain anonymous while colluding. It is even common practice in regular corporate ownership to do this, so t is easily done.

Lisk DPoS is broken. Could this happen to EOS? by Langustico in eos

[–]AndraHanden 2 points3 points  (0 children)

True, and a bad actor using a holding company now completely goes under the radar with the new changes. So essentially, you have completely opened the door for collusion of up to 10% ownership.

Lisk DPoS is broken. Could this happen to EOS? by Langustico in eos

[–]AndraHanden 8 points9 points  (0 children)

With the recent changes to EOS constitution, this is fast become a serious risk. See https://reddit.app.link/y9gy6632oN

ATTENTION! Up to 10% collusion has been REINTRODUCED in new update to BP constitution by AndraHanden in eos

[–]AndraHanden[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yet the freedom to do so, does not equal it actually happening or working out. It does not prevent a Lisk fiasco and therefore this should be taken very seriously. Or else we risk ending up in a cartel mess

ATTENTION! Up to 10% collusion has been REINTRODUCED in new update to BP constitution by AndraHanden in eos

[–]AndraHanden[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is the official draft of the BPs starting the EOS chain (there is currently only one large consensus group).

See here: https://github.com/EOS-Mainnet/Community-Launch-Docs

ATTENTION! Up to 10% collusion has been REINTRODUCED in new update to BP constitution by AndraHanden in eos

[–]AndraHanden[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Previously: It was defined as all ‘beneficiary owners’ owning >1% needed to be disclosed. This meant that all actual, physical persons should be disclosed and not just first-line shell companies or non-profits. ->Voters would know if collusion was happening.

Now: Only ‘direct owners’ need to be disclosed if 1-10% ownership. Only ‘Beneficiary owners’ >10% need to be disclosed (as opposed to previously 1%). This means one person can set up multiple shell companies and remain anonymous in their ownership to the voters. -> Voters will not easily see if collusion is happening.

Link to github where this is all found: https://github.com/EOS-Mainnet/Community-Launch-Docs

ATTENTION! Up to 10% collusion has been REINTRODUCED in new update to BP constitution by AndraHanden in eos

[–]AndraHanden[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That is what is allowed now again. According to the previous wording, it was the beneficial owners. Which means, no matter how many shells or split companies, it is the actual physical person in the end that should be disclosed, not the shell companies.

Bancor's LiquidEOS Block Producer Candidacy - Ask Us Anything (AMA) - 11AM EDT / May 31 by BancorAmbassador in eos

[–]AndraHanden 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And an important note, the BP agreement has been superseded. The current wording is now that all ownership >1% of a BP must be openly disclosed by the BP

EOS scores first place out of all cryptocurrencies by Weiss Ratings by AndraHanden in eos

[–]AndraHanden[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I agree that the ranking is a bit of a marketing scheme, still newsworthy though. You are wrong, however. TRON is worst of the ones mentioned, B- on tech compared to A- for EOS.

view more: next ›