EOS Arbitrator Reverses Confirmed Transaction Raising Controversy

EOS Arbitrator Reverses Confirmed Transaction Raising Controversy

Blockchain protocol EOS wound up at the midst of a new controversy November 9 after proof emerged on social media that an arbitrator reversed a previously confirmed transaction after it was confirmed. 

As indicated by Reddit user u/auti9003, a dispute supposedly including a phished EOS account was reported to an EOS arbitrator who reversed the transaction without authorization from the owner. 

According to the Reddit user, these were transactions that have already been confirmed by the network.

On his own part, the EOS arbitrator Ben Gates, alluded to the EOS constitution as a reason for his action. He wrote:

“Under the powers afforded to me as arbitrator under article 6 of the Rules of Dispute Resolution, I, Ben Gates, rules that the EOS account in dispute should be returned to the claimant with immediate effect and that the freeze over the assets within the said account is removed.” 

EOS has received frequent criticism in the past from cryptocurrency community on account of absence of decentralization.  Speaking about this issue previously, CTO Daniel Larimer himself affirmed in an interview. 

“Decentralization isn’t what we’re after,”

he disclosed to YouTube series Colin Talks Crypto, adding:

“What we’re after is anti-censorship and robustness against being shut down.” 

In June, EOS “froze” seven accounts that were associated with having been compromised through phishing attacks. |At a point, EOS Block Producers (BP) were authorized to stop the processing of transactions associated with the same act thereby affecting some 27 accounts. 

On Reddit, reactions trailed the recent action of the network arbitrator leading to the transaction reversal. The thought of many is that without decentralization there is no way the network can prove that it has anything to offer the system that has is not available with the centralized financial systems.

The platform they said has not demonstrated its utility case when compared to other more traditional centralized structures. The project’s $4 billion year-long Initial Coin Offering (ICO) was also criticized. 

“For what reason would anybody utilize this over a bank account and traditional legal framework?” the most prominent commentary said, including:

“These guys raised ($4 billion) to recreate the legal system using a token that is neither censorship resistant, nor immutable.”

The EOS network has been at the center of the storm since it launched its mainnet. The network has had one controversy after another due to its governance structure and its inability to meet decentralization expectations.

Another user Palatinum expressed frustration over networks such as EOS that concentrated governance on a few hands,

“Why always the distraction by aiming on other blockchains’ problems? This does not change the fact that 21 people earn a shitload of money while controlling the database. Other people like you grab the dust from the floor and think you are making a good business. This is even similar to a ponzi scheme. A blockchain should be decentralized and all people should be treated the same. Something like IOTA once the coordinator is off or Cardano where you will be able to stake with 1 ADA,” he said.

As the network evolves, it has become obvious that many players will continue viewing cryptocurrencies as a path to instant wealth. This is being demonstrated daily in the ideology of several networks.




Author: Jofor Humani

Jofor is a crypto journalist with passion for investigative reviews.

Leave a Reply