Regarding "1 Token, 1 Vote" and My Statement About Yves La Rose of EOS Nation
Regarding "1 Token, 1 Vote" and My Statement About Yves La Rose of EOS Nation
September 15, 2020
By Colin Talks Crypto
Yves recently made a statement that "EOS Nation supports 1T1V" (1 token, 1 vote) and that "he has been waiting for this for a very long time."
This was 180 degree shift from Yves' previous stance. Some of the community explained it by saying that EOS Nation simply changed its mind regarding 1T1V, and that anyone is free to do this.
I completely agree that one can change one's stance. Any company or individual can change its mind any any time. There is no concern about that at all. That is not the point I was making.
Here is the ACTUAL issue.
The issue is that for the past year or more, Yves has consistently: rejected 1T1V, "proved 1T1V to be false", and spoken condescendedly those who supported it (see Max Dapp conversation). This happened in: private conversations on Telegram, on Public group chats on Telegram, as well as on Twitter. Basically, in each case, it amounted to a form of "you're wrong about 1T1V" or "don't bother because 1T1V is pointless" or even "1T1V makes things worse".
In fact, here is a quote from Yves, just ~20 days prior to the sudden changing of his mind. Yves (while defending 1T30V and talking down on 1T1V) told Max Dapp that EOS Nation had done "public modeling, public research, public discussion in public channels over the past year on this very subject along with other top economists and developers on the mainnet", basically saying that EOS Nation found 1T1V to be useless, ineffective, and not a solution— after extensive research of qualified individuals.
To add to that, Yves also condescendingly told Max: "I'd like to hear of the research you've done to make a statement [in favor of 1T1V]; with such a strong position I imagine you're quite knowledgeable on 1T1V and clearly have spent a lot of time on this, you're somewhat of an expert I figure."
Based on his own statements, Yves is HIGHLY knowledgeable and HIGHLY qualified on the subject of 1T1V, and he questions others who do not have the same caliber of expertise and wisdom that he claims to have on this subject.
Then, just ~20 days later, Yves announces "he had been waiting for a very long time for 1T1V", and that "EOS Nation now supports it."
Wait. What?
Yves had very definitely NOT been waiting for a "very long time" for 1T1V. In fact, Yves had actively been against it for a very long time, as per his own statements.
As a side note, but a very important corollary: Is it coincidence that EOS Nation also runs 2 proxies (Yves created these himself, putting his own money on the line at the start, funding users out of his own pocket to gain traction) that trade votes with all of the largest Exchange-BPs, whom vote with user funds, and without whom, it would have been impossible for EOS Nation to gain a top 21 block producing spot? I think it is very unlikely to be a coincidence and that it is unrelated to Yves's frequent and repeated admonitions against 1T1V. But we'll leave that topic for now.
What Happened?
It's one thing to simply have been wrong. If that's what it was, then it would be more understandable. The damage would still have been done in the form of regression of progress from the lead BP in terms of guidance on EOS governance.
If Yves was simply wrong about 1T1V, then the very least he could do is admit this. One step better would be to actually apologize for the effect this had of misleading the EOS community regarding what I would argue is a VERY important topic on EOS: Governance.
.jpg)
But there was no apology delivered by Yves. Not for a year's worth of wrongly guiding the community on this subject, and then suddenly making a 180 degree shift. Not even an explanation was offered. I am looking forward that explanation, but in all honesty, what I expect is cleverly concocted double-speak, based on his past statements. I hope I am wrong.
So Yves never admitted that his voluminous admonitions and discrediting of 1T1V was incorrect.
What did we get instead? A two sentence Voice article proclaiming long-standing support of 1T1V!
Now when I said "This is called lying", there's not any other way to construe it, based on actual statements made.
For example, he could have simply said, "I have changed my mind and I now am in support of 1T1V." Boom. Totally different statement.
But instead, he PRETENDED like he has been in favor of 1T1V "for a very long time", which is quite simply and flatly untrue. I am not the only one in the community who recognized this.
So I want it to be clear that it was not the "changing of one's mind" that was the important point— it was this false claim of long-standing support for 1T1V when that was not true in actuality.
What does this mean?
This behavior shows that Yves/EOS Nation is willing to: stop, discourage & attack an improvement (such as 1T1V) to the network IF it upsets some benefit that he/they personally receive.
He is willing to actively suppress a network improvement even though it is greater for EOS as a whole (as mentioned, the two proxies that Yves himself created, benefit from 30 votes per token when colluding with the very exchanges that vote with user funds).
Yves does a good job of contributing when it does not threaten his own interests. He has done so in this way with much value. He truly has. I will elaborate more on EOS Nation's positive qualities at the end of this article as well.
But this element of suppressing improvements is malicious. It's a clear example of misalignment of governance— the exact thing we're trying to fix.
Most importantly: If Yves is willing to lie about this topic, what else is he willing to lie about?
This is the #1 block producer on EOS. I have higher expectations.
On a personal note to other members of EOS Nation whom I know: Daniel Keyes, I respect you a lot. You have done many great things for EOS and you are just simply a good person. I feel the same way about Stephane Bisson. But at the same time, both of you have not spoken out once against this kind of behavior. That is concerning to me. By saying nothing about it, especially when it's your own group, it's a form of agreement. I wish you'd speak up more.
The Real Cause
Ironically, the shortcomings in EOS governance are why this entire issue exists in the first place.
Dan Larimer even talks about this, and essentially admits this, in the recent Everything EOS episode. Dan makes the analogy of trying to change the engine in a plane that is flying already, being much more difficult than building it correctly from the start while it's landed. EOS as a live, running blockchain is in the air.
Summary
EOS Nation has done many great things for EOS, but leading on governance improvements is not one of them. I appreciate all the work EOS Nation has done in getting the inflation reduced to 1%, coordinating the EOSIO software upgrade from 1.8.0 to 2.0.0, and in getting the "lost genesis keys" solution in place, not to mention bridging the gap between the East and the West. There are countless positive things that have emanated from EOS Nation. EOS Nation is a leader in the space— except for changes in governance.
What happened to all that "public modeling, public research, public discussion in public channels over the past year" that Yves claimed about 1T1V? Did it just fly out the window a mere two days after Dan Larimer said he was going to put in place 1T1V?
I realize that the fate of EOS governance is now in block.one's hands. Dan eloquently described this in his recent interview on Everything EOS, and after watching it, I feel he 100% completely grasps the situation and what B1 needs to do to rectify it. So I leave it in their good hands and wait for the improvements that I know are coming. I just wish that they came faster, because every day that we wait, is a day we could be doing so much better. Dan even expressed his desire that upgrades, such as the new resource model, could be implemented more quickly.
I hope this clarifies things I have said.
If you don't agree with me, then at least you know where I stand and why.