“We Love the Coin, But Hate Its Centralization” Says Weiss Cryptocurrency Ratings
Enthusiasm for EOS has reached fever pitch. The coin’s engineer, Block.One raised $4 billion through the offer of the cryptocurrency, and crypto devotees trust that the platform can satisfy its guarantee of taking out transaction expenses while handling a huge number of transactions every second.
Alas, not all is brilliant daylight in the kingdom of EOS. Weiss Cryptocurrency Ratings issued a blog entry specifying their worries over the undertaking. Weiss focused on that they’re completely going to play a part with the objective of the cryptocurrency, expressing:
“EOS is a great project. It still merits a good Weiss Rating overall. And it still has the potential to do what Ethereum promised — take the crypto world to the next level and establish a foundation for the smart economies of the future.
Indeed, EOS is the first fully scalable, complete, third-generation, distributed-ledger platform ever to be released to the public. I know that’s a mouthful. But that’s exactly what it is.”
However, the sprout falls off the rose for Weiss with regards to the coin’s gigantic centralization. The firm notes that the expressed objective of EOS is decentralization and that future advancement lies in the hands of the network. However, there are some real issues.
Weiss takes note that they have “recognized EOS as a platform with a standout amongst the most brought together dispersed records on the planet today.” truth be told, the platform gains an amazing 97 (out of 100) on the Gini coefficient. This implies the platform is basically a “medieval kingdom” where a couple of rulers rule.
Fundamentally, the best 10 EOS token holders can adequately control the whole network. There are just 21 square makers for the platform, and every individual token enables its holder to vote in favor of 30 diverse square makers. The outcome is that a little gathering of individuals holding the larger part of tokens can figure out who those square makers are, and nothing whatever is left of the token holders can do about it.
Weiss offers a few answers for this quandary. To start with, the biggest token holders ought to recognize themselves, taking into account more prominent straightforwardness. Secondly, every token ought not to get 30 votes. Thirdly, the platform should expand the number of square makers to more than 21. In conclusion, Weiss recommends that the voting energy of the huge token holders ought to be capped at 2.5% of the token aggregate supply.
It’ll be fascinating to perceive how EOS shakes out. The dispatch of its mainnet has been deferred, and various security issues were as of late found (they’ve since been settled). Generally speaking, Weiss Cryptocurrency Ratings gives EOS a B-.
