EOS Arbitration Forum Orders Freeze of 27 Accounts

The EOS network, which launched more than a week ago, has once again surprised everyone with its unconventional approach to governance.

In the June 22 “Emergency Relief Order,” the EOS Core Arbitration Forum (ECAF), a body created to resolve disputes within the community, prohibited block producers that support the EOS network from processing transactions of 27 cryptocurrency wallets.

The order states:

“EOS Block Producers are hereby ordered to refuse to process transactions of the following accounts indefinitely (until the next official notice and order) ECAF).

The most controversial point is that ECAF did not explain the reason for this decree at all. “The logic and rationale for this directive will be published later.”

This decree has attracted a storm of criticism both within and outside the EOS community, but there are also critics who believe that this decree demonstrates the fact that the EOS network is not decentralized, as it is governed in some way. government.

Supporters of the movement believe that the frozen accounts are most likely suspected of fraudulent activities, which have been growing significantly recently. Kyle Samani, one of the EOS investors, told CoinDesk that “27 accounts were allegedly carrying out spam attacks. I support such measures against them."

EOS' approach to network management is completely new for any blockchain project. In some ways, EOS was created by more of a community than a single organization, which should imply a commitment to decentralization by network participants. EOS was designed with high throughput, so it works with a more efficient - but less decentralized - consensus mechanism than the proof of work that Bitcoin uses. Delegated proof of stake is a consensus mechanism that gives 21 selected block producers the authority and responsibility for maintaining the EOS blockchain. have the power to block transactions. In addition, the ECAF was created, whose main function is to resolve disputes, apparently by ordering the freezing of accounts...

According to critics, this form of control is extremely centralized, and does not at all fit the description of a censorship-resistant, distributed network. Those who support this move demonstrate a “pragmatic” point of view rather than a “moral” one.

At the time of writing, it is unknown whether block manufacturers will follow the decree.

According to https://www.coindesk.com