5423
If you are looking for Vaulta, go here: https://t.me/EOS_Global/1 🛑NO Spam 🛑NO Toxicity 🛑NO Advertising 🛑NO Trolls
You might recognize some of these faces. Join us Thursday at noon EDT for @BlockchaiNorth weekly Spaces, where we're debating code is law vs. intent of code.
Читать полностью…
Who would've guessed?! Apart from blockchain visionary, he's also an AI genius!
Well, I mean, once I heard about "Omnitrove," the universal asset management platform with the name of a kid's Disney made-for-TV B-movie, and saw the website I was convinced.
AI Genius, hands down.
don't worry I'll be conspiratorial enough for the both of us 😂
Читать полностью…
And Yves has also, since the vote, refused to move forward with the transfer of the network's assets until the votes are removed.
Читать полностью…
Please consider joining here to see what happens on a daily basis - @Hu_Fi_Nigeria.
There is a lot that has been accomplished over the years;, and the recent AI developments, can only help.
I don't know enough about the ECF, but if they really want to enact some sort of sweeping change, I think they've figured out how to do that. Print enough tokens to place 15/21 and change away. Its amazing to me how observers would still hold that token, but hey, free will and stuff 😅
What is also a clear byproduct of the vote trader scheme, is when it is done by token custodians (eg Bithumb - Tony) its not their skin in the game that they are leveraging for a return. And so is potentially why they don't really need to care about the actual health of the ecosystem, or its future prospects, so long as the milk is still being squeezed.
I'll say it again, the only rational solution for the remaining people here who want to see something meaningful come of this tech, launch a new chain. Make the tweaks to disincentivise vote trading (no need to attempt some sort of enforcement group, like OIG, and now ECF), plus fix some other stuff since it'll be much easier to do so in planning, and start fresh. Call the token EOSIO, own the history, see if B1 will give that X account over, and the other IP. Easy peasy 😂
Oh and ofc make Cloak's tech part of the base layer...shielded DEFI alone is a game changer if adopted 🚀
Thank you for your words, Mr. Maurice.
I am not only part of a complex country; I am part of an illogical continent. In the midst of abundance and resources, we live through realities of deep necessity. This is why we perceive contexts differently from those who live without such concerns.
Returning to the debate: the fundamental difference, as I see it, is that in HuFi, we do not view Block Producers (BPs) as an end, but as a means.
The autonomy of a Socio-Technological Development Core in Latam is not a theory; it is an operational necessity born of our context. The HuFi movement functions as a federation precisely because each of us has 'Skin in the Game' within our territories, risking what is rarely mentioned: our time and our legal security. With EOS technology, we can redefine the phrase 'time is money' by grounding it in an immutable record.
The current model is fragile because it is focused purely on financial mechanics. We are building an antifragile infrastructure based on human utility.
Ultimately, we do not need to convince 'the system' that we are decentralized; the daily use by our people in the real world will prove it. We will see you in adoption. We hope it becomes clear that the governance of a few will only weaken the price they so desperately want to recover. A world filled with practical, daily uses for EOS will be the catalyst they seek—rather than begging for the attention of corporations that, these days, only have eyes for BTC.
Thank you @ChrisBarnes1 for not abandoning the group. I don't like being criticized, but I am okay with being challenged. I specially do not mind it if those doing it have shown through actions a devotion to figuring out what could be the best next step.
Believe me. I am not rooting for the price to go down. We have suffered enough. At the end of the day, what I want is real change to combat intentionally created monetary systems that favor the few. Inherently if we reach this goal, the EOS blockchain will flourish as well.
Fair enough, and to be clear I'm not suggesting anything about his character, just that he had a smidge of hubris on how things would play out.
Читать полностью…
I was not defending Thomas Cox. I am saying the voting research describing all the possible ways a person can vote ultimately creates pros and cons. Changing 30 votes for one entity or any other derivation of voting will still lead to a debatable issue as we see here today.
On the record, while I may not be defending Thomas Cox, he appeared to be a solid guy to me.
Such a strange response..."The system is working.""Governance is not the problem. The main problem is how liquidity is created into existence."
This system is clearly not working if the goal was a flourishing ecosystem, and how exactly is liquidity created into existence if not for governance that permits it?
Oh and the part defending T Cox, dude was asked numerous times by numerous individuals about how this was going to work, when there were clearly legitimate issues. My favourite was his response along the lines of the community will come together and vote out bad actors...lol. Right the same votes that are being compromised 😂
Certainly I agree with you on how absurd it is to have the authority to print new tokens (liquidity) AND then use them to vote for more authority. Obviously this points to a captured system, which is why I'm surprised there are still people who think this can be resolved without making major structural changes 🤷🏻♂️ Unless they feel nothing needs to change, just put different people in the seats...which is funny 😅
The current monetary system is intentional and it feels more orderly with every passing year. The economic divide cannot get any worse.
We can send it into disorder if we use blockchain to help people create liquidity peer to peer. Credits and debits as a community currency is bartering 3.0.
The law of entropy increase: Any isolated system will gradually lapse into disorder in the absence of external energy input
Читать полностью…
such a strange state of affairs...I wonder what prompt Yves is using to come up with the conclusion to hold all the assets like this 🤓 he is an AI expert after all 🧠
Читать полностью…
I'm in your Hu_Fi_English channel and familiar with the work your community has done, and congratulate you on continuing to be able to do so on this chain with all of the headwinds anyone building here has faced.
Читать полностью…
They've identified the problem.
That's a key first step I think everyone can get behind.
How and why and for who's benefit is a separate issue.
Coincidentally, the BP's approved the proposal for an audit of the network's assets days before Huaqiang and Da Feng used the tokens to vote that took months to even get proposed, that's since been put on pause.
I'm just providing more information and context for how events unfolded, not drawing conclusions or being conspiratorial.
Thank you for your civil, thoughtful, and professional response. There is nothing in your well-written message with which I disagree. We are willing not only to listen but to contribute tokens to the pursuit.
I am a not a governance professional. My passion has been and remains elsewhere; however, I rely on intelligent, morally grounded, savvy, and well-intentioned individuals whose perspectives I am prepared to consider. This is not a matter of "my way or the highway."
It appears to me that to bring your vision to light, you require EOS. Do you have access to sufficient resources?
Before I conclude this discussion on governance for the foreseeable future, I will state the following: today, tomorrow, or ten years from now, I want to see the Block Producers (BPs), some BPs, utilizing rewards to trigger positive economic actions, as we have been able to demonstrate.
Please reach out to me in private and we can discuss how our community can be of service.
@MrHu_Fi I have to agree with @ChrisBarnes1 and I think you've come around to see the point as well.
Governance is a fundamental issue that touches both the legitimacy of the transactions on this chain as well as the tokenomics.
Both are broken on Vaulta.
I've been vocally against both the Treasury voting with the 223M $A as well as their placement in REX for a variety of reasons, least of which is that that was not their intended purpose.
Another call I began making prior to the Treasury voting, which came after the drops in token price and complaints from Block Producers as to their inability to continue producing blocks at a profit, was:
"Under no circumstances should BPs be bailed out."
Why?
Because they are willingly paying 80-90% of their tokens to buy the votes required to keep them amongst the Top 21. Meaning, any extra funds going to "subsidize" BPs is in fact, still only going to continue to prop up the vote buying cartel. If they are producing blocks in the red, they should tell their local vote trader to lower their commission.
I do support the creation of the ECF and believe the intention is good, and that this chain needs a community led organizations that can have an impact on the chain's governance. However, they should get the tokens required to implement their decisions from token holders.
Hello.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I have been blessed to know you for many years and to affectionately call you my "twin". But alas, we are are not identical twins. I am fiery, you are even keeled. The perspective you share day in and day out is what this chain needs, what the world needs.
You are part of the reason I thought of the HuFi™ branded BPS. I could not think of a better person to receive rewards and use these rewards like I do, but independently of who I am.
You are blessed with so many gifts that cannot be shared because of the economic and governing issues that surround you for no-fault of your own. Ironically, the brats in this group do have the impunity to share what they think but have no talent at all.
I am also grateful that you have yet to give up , and I know that it is a harder commitment for you. I lose money, but thanks to my second and third jobs I can replace. You are sacrificing your time and we all know in the Hu-Fi Movement community that is one commodity we can never get back.
This is not strange to me at all. This has been my number one reason I keep innovating and not giving up.
I have been insulted, mocked, called a thieve (trying to be civil) by EOS Nation, lied to, betrayed, good people have been thrown in jail, intentionally voted out when I complained about ENF (that was the second time), and the list goes on. I am now complaining that ECF, and there may be good intentions in their pursuit, it certainly feels like it, is wrong voting with those 223 Million EOS. It is equally criminal the rewards being received through rexxing the 223M EOS. Giving this weapon to seven people is intentionally making the seven people panel complicit to this action. I would not have the votes. I would not be a member of the 7 person committee.
This blockchain could be a strong response to economic inequality and the liberation to honest, well intended brain power held hostage around the world due to systems created without their consent.
These are not just words. Many in the Hu-Fi community work on a daily basis to be the example. The actions seem futile at times; but everyday, at least in my case, I do feel the reward.
Ahh ya ok I see your point, and that does make sense for an actor to gradually acquire enough tokens to then be able to make changes, but honestly if someone had that kind of capital it would likely be better to simply fork, or relaunch a new EOSIO/Antelope chain...make the changes from the start, and lose all the dead weight who still own EOS/A and worse may have simply printed them out of thin air.
Читать полностью…
Hello. I stand by my opinion that the current system of governance is clearly working. The price drops are market forces telling us there is no demand. This will force a change of leadership through EOS token acquisition. Imagine if EOS drops to $0,01 and for 1M, an entity is able to buy 100M. Imagine if the price drops further. I know that we continue to buy with the goal to affect governance one day.
Then the ecosystem may flourish if the new leadership creates a product that creates demand.
Assuming that sharing a brand equates to centralized command is a misconception. In HuFi, we are building Socio-Technological Development Cores across the globe—not a network of clones, but a true Federation.
The current EOS model is fragile: it relies on a handful of large-scale entities vulnerable to collusion and institutional capture, whose only 'Skin in the Game' is financial. If the price drops, their commitment vanishes.
HuFi proposes to make EOS/Vaulta antifragile by decentralizing into autonomous regional nodes with their own legal and operational sovereignty. Each HuFi Core has an organic commitment to its territory; we don't operate solely for rewards, but to drive social impact and real-world adoption.
True decentralization isn't just technical; it’s political and geographical. A BP in a corporate office is a single point of failure against regulation. A federation of cores integrated into the P2P economy of millions is a network that is impossible to shut down.
This is the ultimate way to distribute resilience to the financially excluded. In the end, the most secure network isn't the one with the most powerful servers, but the one most indispensable to the daily lives of its people.
Ultimately, these models are not mutually exclusive—they are symbiotic. We need both powerful infrastructure and practical social adoption. That is all.
Respectfully, the research conducted for 1 token for 30 votes was well thought out by Thomas Cox. There is existing research on this topic that I found interesting and I urge you to find. Changing the governance yet again is not the answer. In this research, every form of governance had pros and cons.
My view is that every bad decision with the existing governance is working. Let's take vote buying as an example. Yes, it is poor business because people are focused on the reward that then is sold. The current market result is a lower price. There have been so many bad decisions that the price per EOS has imploded by more than 99.9955% if we use the price of $20.00 which EOS had at one point. The system is working. A lower price if mapped out will lead to the eventual demise of those token holders that hold the asset and are collaborators in the vote buying system. In addition, those BPS paying for the votes are giving their rewards to an entity that one day may not vote for them. Frankly, the market forces was working to perfection. This is until the ECF stepped in to vote with unearned EOS to the tune of 223m and choose the winners. The same winners that have been complicit to the many poor decisions over the years. Eventually this will lead to price destruction as well; but in the short term, continue to foster the the lack of innovation.
Those that are criticizing the intent of multiple block producers branded HuFi™ may have their opinion. I am of the opinion that groups of people in regional areas where the EOS are being used to trigger economic actions that lead to a demand of EOS can be block producers. If they have the votes and the votes are supported by purchased EOS, they have the right as anyone else. Each country can have a BP branded HuFi™ and be self governed. That our team chooses to support, facilitate the purchase, renting of the hardware along with instruction of the software is our choice. I choose to help people that have a track record of using EOS in an innovative way be a part of the governance through a block producer. Just because they may not have the means financially or intellectually should not ban them from being able to participate in governance. If the EOS are going to be used to create the demand for more EOS and be good partners to the chain, they should have that right. To be clear, we have zero paid BPS at this time so the criticism is baseless.
My point of view has always been that governance is not the main problem. The main problem is how liquidity is created into existence. Fractional reserve lending (currently it is zero in the USA), quantitative easing, balance sheet manipulation etc. creates winners that should not be "winning".
Blockchain is given us the opportunity to re-write the definition of "money".
There is nothing more complex than the human body that continues to innovate; and while not perfect, it is amazing what we have been able to achieve.
Please stop voting with unearned EOS. At the very least, stop taking the rewards from those of us that bought the EOS. Stake the EOS instead of rexxing the EOS.