_{Image Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons}

It looks like EOS loves to remain in controversy. Since the conception of this project to the launch of its Mainnet and to this day, controversies around it never stops. It doesn’t seem to be a peaceful project to me and keeps stirring my mind for no reason.

I’m the kind of person who would study and research about a project and once convinced of its future potential, will invest my money into it and forget for a long time to come in the hope of reaping a huge reward some day. But EOS doesn’t like people of my kind.

All inactive accounts of EOS holders can be officially robbed!

EOS is a blockchain governed by community. So it wants all its members to be active. If you don’t want to participate in its governance model and just want to be a dormant investor for over three years with zero transactions on its chain, you should stay away from it. This is the message being articulated in its proposed constitution. #Article XV of it states:

Termination of Agreement -A Member is automatically released from all revocable obligations under this Constitution 3 years after the last transaction signed by that Member is incorporated into the blockchain. After 3 years of inactivity an account may be put up for auction and the proceeds distributed to all Members according to the system contract provisions then in effect for such redistribution.

So never make a blunder of buying EOS tokens and putting away those tokens in your wallet to forget for some years. You will be robbed of all your tokens. The above article, if approved by the community, will allow for your account to be auctioned and all its funds will be re-distributed to all other Members.

The underlying assumption seems that if a token holder is inactive for a long enough time (of 3 years), it implies that the token-holder is not in need of those tokens and would never care to access his/her tokens. It’s being equated to reclaiming of an abandoned property!

BPs action of freezing EOS accounts has been approved by ECAF

After all 21 BPs unanimously decided to freeze 7 “suspected” EOS accounts last Sunday; ECAF has now approved their action for an indefinite freeze. It was alleged that these seven accounts held stolen funds from a suspected phishing attack. Hence BPs decided to take an extra-judicial action. ECAF (EOS Core Arbitration Forum) has earlier denied to issue any order on it citing that the constitution was not yet ratified by the EOS community so it doesn’t have any constitutional authority to issue the order. However, after the Freeze by BPs, ECAF issued this Emergency Measure of Protection Order. Does this vindicate BPs’ stance?

Initially, it looked like a coup from BPs to topple ECAF by taking and implementing decisions on its behalf. I’m not questioning whether or not the decision taken was good and in the interest of community but irrespective of the type of decision; it proves that any kind of decision can be taken by BPs.

But how can you protect the following victim?

When I went through following conversation of a user who bought one of those seven accounts by paying 4 BTC (for 3490 EOS), I find no reason for why this user is being penalized for making an absolutely valid purchase of 3490 EOS.

Here are the screen shots from the conversation for you to see:

If EOS is a governed blockchain where individual’s property is held in higher regard than code and systems (as pledged by one of its BPs); can it also reverse its action to release the EOS which the above-said user rightfully deserves? If not, how will you explain your stance?

People have displayed a lot of trust in EOSIO and it's surprising that despite of all the negative news which regularly keep flashing, EOS has maintained its price over $10 all these while. But it doesn't validate all that as there is another way to look at things. People were expecting a huge appreciation in the price after the Mainnet launch but it couldn't break its all time high and instead struggling around half of that.

• Does this imply the success of the EOS so far?
• Do you think forfeiting an inactive account a valid rule?
• Do you think the above-said victim of unconstitutional Freeze was at fault?

I'm naive at understanding all these. So your opinions and explanations matter to me. I'd be eagerly looking forward to your feedback on this issue.

Thank you!

_{References
Statements & Explanations from some of the BPs: 1, 2
EOS Technical White Paper v2 & Proposed Constitution: 1, 2}