EOS is more Centralized than Steem
Now that the EOS snapshot has occurred there are many reports that 50% of all EOS coins are held in 10 wallets. Oops! I suppose the yearlong ICO wasn't as decentralizing as everyone made it out to be.
Can you say that you are surprised? Steem has been out for two years. We've had two years to hype up the platform of one of the only cryptos that actually does something. This in turn caused new people to enter the space and buy Steem coins from the whales, thus decentralizing the platform. EOS has had no time to do this because it remains 100% speculative with no active mainnet.
Perhaps this is jumping the gun a bit. There is a theory out there that states those 10 wallets could be centralized exchanges like Binance. If this was the case, one of those wallets could contain hundreds if not thousands of people's tokens. We'll just have to wait and see what the distribution is actually like once everyone's EOS accounts are actually set up.
On the other side of the coin, can't we assume that some whales split up their holdings into multiple wallets? This would give the appearance of decentralization when they are all controlled by one person. When it really comes down to it, EOS centralization was bound to happen. What else did we expect when the only way to get tokens is with fiat currency.
As long as fiat currency is intimately linked to crypto the space will remain overly centralized because fiat is overly centralized. The ultimate blockchains of the future will simply give coins away (proof-of-existence aka UBI) at the beginning to promote decentralization, and then pivot to a different proof. I generically call this proof-of-reputation or proof-of-trust.
I maintain the idea that @dan will once again get frustrated with this creation and start over again eventually. However, he may stay within the bounds of EOS for quite some time because he can piggyback new coins directly on top of the platform. Still, if 10 accounts control 50% of all coins and each account gets 30 witness votes... you can see how this is an oligarchy. Those 10 accounts can elect all the witnesses. It's been pretty obvious to me from day one that an account should only get one vote (duh).
Fortunately, this isn't something to get freaked out about. New systems of government do not start out corrupt. They get corrupt over time. Blockchain technology evolves so quickly that maneuvering around corruption is much easier than ever before.
Mwahahahah! I can't wait to see what will come out of this megalomaniac ICO. Once the ICO ends, they'll have enough money to buy all the other ICOs out there and then some!
What software project can possibly justify such an obscene amount of money? I'm yet to be convinced.
It really does look greedy. Not only did they make 4 billion dollars during the ICO they kept 10% of all the EOS coins for themselves. Perhaps this is just @dan making sure the people he trusts have centralized control of the project until it gets where it needs to go. He did get burned by both Bitshares and Steem because he didn't have enough power to influence the direction of the projects. As the lead developer of both projects, I can see how this would be insanely frustrating.
If Block.One does what they say they are going to do, they will use that money to fund projects directly without ICOs. Then they will airdrop those non-ICO coins onto EOS holders... but... they control most of the EOS coins... lol.
Honestly I still have very high hopes for EOS. Dreamer's gotta dream. @dan has a good reputation. Let it ride. This is all part of the process. The struggle is real.
Most of those top addresses belong to exchanges and in turn by users of those exchanges making claims of centralization false.
That doesn't mean a coin isn't centralized. The exchange technically has access to all of the keys and could theoretically misuse those keys if they wanted to. There is an additional element of "trust" there. Now granted that such keys aren't being used for staking purposes is another consideration altogether, but if an exchange were to be hacked of all of said token, then that would be a potential problem. The more tightly distributed tokens happen to be (regardless of location), the less secure a network is.
Ownership of tokens is not as centralized as claimed in this post.
Even if exchanges hold many tokens for owners does not make EOS centralized.
Also, some exchanges like Bitfinex committed to let token owners to vote with their tokens while stored on exchange.
Thank you for readdressing this point but I already mentioned it.
Title of the post leaves no doubts about your actual claim.
AKA
Aka you made a false claim in the title and left yourself a way out with
"Perhaps this is jumping the gun a bit" in post content.
You still haven't read what I wrote, but by all means keep trying to put the blame on me here.
I read your post.
What stands out is not your hidden disclaimer, but false, click bait title spreading FUD.
Yes, that "hidden" disclaimer. An entire paragraph of seven whole paragraphs you couldn't be bothered to read before opening that yapper of yours.
EOS is my favorite coin right now take that FUD argument and shove it. Comparing two blockchains made by the same person isn't FUD.
Quite interesting thoughts! I d see not that much of a reason out the largest accounts to be exchanges, @eossocal has provided a real in-depth look at that, with the outcome that the top 100 accounts hold 37% of tokens, so a real different picture. But I am sceptic as well if they will stick to the rules. Huobi and bfx have announced they will support voting, but to my understanding this would require them to provide their customers with one wallet each, didn't see that so far. On the other hand there are major exchanges like Binance, that have stayed quite, will they just not vote or use votes in their own interest. Wouldn't be a great thing having a huge arbitration case right at the mainchain launch....