years to have moved the needle for EOS in the positive direction, and it objectively hasn't (via many metrics, not just MCAP). I get its more fun to focus on only the good stuff, we see a lot of that, but if you do that and deliberately ignore the bad stuff…the bad stuff doesn't disappear, and what's worse is if some of the bad stuff was correct.
E.g., a complete random hypothetical: What if there are some who are looking for ways to extract network inflation for their own (and their close group of friends who help maintain control) pockets first…at the expense of the token price, and broader community as a whole? I know, speculation, but after watching the RAM fiasco how can we ignore the possibility? This bait and switch has even started to cause some of the die-hards to re-think things.…broken promises and objective examples of insiders front running the use of network inflation will do this.
All to say, it's too bad that this level of mismanagement is permitted. It's hard not to call it anything other than that looking back. Even the failure of the Antelope Coalition is such a shame that I think rests at the feet of EOS leadership. There was a win/win/win/win/… deal there that was lost due to ego's, lousy negotiators, and a lack of vision. To say that EOS had all the money in that deal was true, but WAX had more users, Telos had a developed EVM with a solid community and organic growth, UX had smart dudes and useful tech. We never saw a coordinated effort to leverage each strength to create a far larger community. Instead they spent like $200k on 'branding' and now the best part of that coalition concept (IF + IBC) is going to be licensed. This is a complete failure of coming to consensus…the antitheses of the spirit of blockchains. Even with B1, there was a deal there, and a deal in the end would've been long-term better for this community. Instead we saw ego's and self-interest do what they do, and the EOS bag holder is left doing exactly that.
Стикер
Стикер
Стикер
Стикер
Обсуждают сегодня