Brief Synopsis of the Article That I Wrote On the $EOS Leaked Huobi Documents
This article that I wrote is in reference to an article that was released by a Chinese media outlet about a week or two ago. You can find the link to that article here:
It’s written in Chinese, so you’d need to use Google Translate in order to view everything in it.
I went through the trouble already of translating the article before having a Chinese speaking friend confirm the translation and tell me some of the nuances in its translation.
Here’s a brief summary of what the article covers and why I feel that EOS investors should know about this (no, this isn’t fud — I’m just relaying information):
1.) The spreadsheet was leaked accidentally by one of Huobi’s employees in some sort of IRC-esque chatroom that they have over there. Some reports say that the employee did it on purpose to expose Huobi. Either way, it was released and Huobi obviously didn’t sign off on that.
2.) It was deleted soon thereafter, but people were still able to download the attachment at that point.
3.) Upon downloading and viewing the article, it became immediately obvious what the spreadsheet was for.
4.) The spreadsheet began circulating heavy in the Chinese crypto circles, before an article was eventually written about it.
[Now, remember, EOS is HUGE in China and it has the backing of most of the country’s major blockchain figures. They do not feel the same way about EOS in China that many Westerners do (i.e., many Westerners have complained $EOS’ potential value did not warrant the funding they have received)
5.) An article was eventually written on the spreadsheet — but that article was written in China. So this also stopped the flow of information to the Western world about this leak.
6.) The information was eventually relayed, but there was no analysis of the article itself.
So what I did was simply dig into the article, look at the screenshots contained within, then dig into its claims (objectively).
Analyzing the Topology of $EOS
Once I did that, I then started analyzing the actual topology of the network itself, looking at the historical voting data for the BPs in question, and ranking nodes in a personal spreadsheet based on the archived, ranking information provided by other independent entities in the community that audit the EOS BPs on a regular basis for transparency.
Take the article how you want it. I’m sure a lot of you will discard it mentally and call it FUD of some sort. I’m hoping that MOST of you actually take the time to at least read this piece and view the implications of it.
Rather than viewing this as a slam to EOS or something to ignore, you all could instead embrace the fact that this does appear to be an issue and then coordinate/strategize better ways to reduce the incidence of this occurring.
I consider this to be akin to the ASIC issue that PoW chains face. There’s no use in just ignoring ASICs. They won’t go away. You either have to creatively deal with them or you accept them.
Why I Published This
I’m just presenting this information to the community so that you at least have the choice to either accept or reject this collusion among top nodes.