So, you want to know who is who and who

has what on every account on the network? Others have said more but there is a substantially broad distribution of tokens on EOS, and it's impossible to say the true extent of it because any tokens held on a CEX one is not able to differentiate between owners. This is really silly talk though, and I dare you to hold any other network to these standards. It doesn't make any sense.

"For all we know, one person could own multiple accounts that result in a majority percentage of all tokens in circulation."

Yes, people own multiple accounts., but that's true on literally every blockchain network in existence. Have you considered CBDC's?

"Hiding behind the ENF is not going to be enough."

I really don't know what you're getting at. Please use some of this energy to track down the 12 ivestors that made off with their sum of $11+B from the B1 days and shame them instead. This witch hunt attitude against those who are building and coordinating on behalf of the network, despite the massive obstacles we face, despite the network's loss of capital, is not helpful. It is not helpful to malign those who are continuing to build here with these vague innuendos. We are not the enemy. Transparency and communication are increasing day by day, more than on MANY other networks.

"Major stakeholders need to be leaders and step up to the plate and be willing to take more risk by providing transparency to the people of the network they serve."

I can't even believe I'm still responding to this... really. This is insane. Supreme armchair action here. Many major stakeholders are both super rekt and still building, still striving, still coordinating to improve the network on all levels.

Conditions have never been better for new players to get in the game. This situation won't last forever. Please stop blaming those who are trying to rescue the network from the damage it sustained under the previous management, and lend a hand. Everyone has something on the line. Everyone, whale or minnow is a person, with all kinds of needs and considerations one cannot fathom. To say that a large token holder that mortgaged their house cannot sell because they have responsibility to whatever, whereas a small token holder that purchased $1000 EOS on a lark in 2018 is fine to sell, makes no sense. It's a free market, you can't constrain the choices people make with their resources. You can keep building value and designing better systems that produce positive outcomes for more players, but we are coming from behind here. None of this is happening in a vacuum. Those who understand the history here know how far we've come, and we're not done yet.

Obviously this is a complex problem and I saw a lot of comparing to other cryptocurrencies. My overall opinion is that blockchain technology has the potential to change the world but it will take a system that operates with transparency to avoid corruption from greed. Cryptocurrency up to this point seems like another fraud equivalent to the fiat system. Led by a fallacy that the people's interest are the core reason of existence. A system can only become decentralized if the key players who build the system are willing to let their power diminish into a decentralized system. This can not be realized on EOS for as long as the key players do not participate in a transparent manner. Eden had hope for a way to elect leaders but EOS refused to allow the network to be run by participating, identified token holders. Vote buying and the large allocation that whales own do not allow for everyday investors to get involved with the current BP voting governance. I would like to know who am I investing in and what percentage of the pie I am getting in return for supporting the builders and operators of the network. There I can gauge and access the risk and decide if it is worth continuing to invest in. My rookie mistake was believing in the words of promisers. If major stakeholders are relying on new investors to foot the bill for their mortgage while convenintely hiding behind being "anonymous" then EOS is doomed. A proposed solution would be to consider a staking solution that would redistribute the allocation percentage by rewarding people who are willing to lock up their value for an extended period of time. I'd consider a system that incentivizes identified accounts as that may be the best way to fight against anonymity from corrupting transparency. Within 5 years there could be a distribution that would start to benefit all of those who have the intention for the longer term value as well as identifying leaders of the network. Leaders do not hide. You mentioned doing something about this instead of providing critique. Then INCENTIVIZE to do so. Who is going to continue to volunteer time to a network they have no idea who the main key players are? I hope for the best for EOS but I see a lot of delusion around the idea that EOS is super decentralized. Again, for all we know, the majority share of tokens could be in the hands of less than 100 people. This is also not just against EOS, this goes for every cryptocurrency. Crypto to me has failed to deliver on it's promises up unto this point. EOS has the technology, but now it needs to be implemented with the mindset of benefiting the many instead of the few.