Zi Cen: For Blockone, what is the real "emphasis on the Chinese market"?

secondary title

The antidote for EOS is certainly not blockchain governance: Governance is a dead end

Interested people may notice that I never comment on "governance" issues, because I think from the beginning that it doesn't make much sense.

For an open blockchain infrastructure such as EOS, the value moat is the users, traffic, and digital assets deposited on this underlying layer. The path to achieve this goal is very simple. It is built on this infrastructure. Enterprises or applications with different business models. For such underlying facilities, the extra points are its own appeal, developer support, community and user base, transaction liquidity advantages, and the corresponding ability to import external resources."What is the minus item?"Uncertainty

, no sane company would be willing to base its business model on an infrastructure full of uncertainties and uncontrollable factors. Governance will just push this infrastructure into great uncertainty, or at least, make enterprises and users outside the ecology mistakenly think that this place looks chaotic and full of "uncertainty". If you can't empathize, you can imagine how we view Taiwan's general election.

Unlike POW, DPOS is an "internal consensus" reached by the collective decision-making of community currency holders. The chaotic situation outside the community is the biggest obstacle for DPOS to expand the scope of consensus.

But in essence, blockchain governance is all about the right to generate blocks. What the governance contends for is the attribution of part of the income from the system’s additional issuance. In the case of EOS, the figure of this additional issuance income is 1% per year. So in my eyes, being obsessed with disputes about "governance" is to pursue the need for a fair distribution of 1% share, completely ignoring the most basic requirements of the other 1000% or even 10000% future growth for this infrastructure.

This means that the topic of "governance" we are arguing about has become "0%". Under such business logic, there is no difference between Staking mining pools and PoW mining pools, and voting users can be compared to Bitcoin miners. What the mining pool obtains is extremely low rate of return, what needs to be compared is the rate, service and stability, not what we have emphasized in the past, "how much it has contributed to the ecology". The top exchanges will also naturally become the most powerful mining pool competitors due to the advantages of huge user deposits.

secondary title

DeFi can’t be the antidote for EOS: Of course I hope it can be, but it’s really difficult

In this matter, the most fundamental difference between the EOS ecology and Ethereum is that with staking voting dividends, EOS does not need to pin its "locked liquidity" on DeFi. Locking liquidity is no longer a rigid need, and DeFi has lost the fertile soil like the Ethereum community. Therefore, even if EOS has high enough concurrency and efficiency, it is difficult for DeFi projects to be active enough. According to this logic, it is not difficult to find that other DeFi projects other than Ethereum are difficult to succeed, because the public chains have already copied their homework: without exception, the whole world is staking. Unfortunately, Staking will naturally eradicate the living soil of DeFi, because in such an environment, DeFi is no longer urgently needed.

secondary title

The Chinese market will be one of the most important antidote for EOS: But what we have to see is what kind of efforts Blockone will make

The situation before EOS is actually very simple. On the one hand, Blockone is the existence of the top resource strength in the entire blockchain industry, and of course, it also includes the strongest financial resources, having sufficient capital reserves of at least the top three levels of blockchain companies. On the other hand, under the pressure of voting dividends, the supernodes who once set off an election craze have no spare power to play a greater role in promoting. The power of the community other than Blockone has obviously been unable to do what it wants. The developer community is also continuing to lose blood, and a large amount of it is lost to other underlying ecology.

There is only one key thing that can really turn the tide: Blockone.

For Blockone, it cannot be empty talk to start to pay attention to the Chinese market again. In fact, I am also waiting for what kind of efforts Blockone will make for China. Whether EOS can really break through in the future depends on this. What is real "valuation"? In fact, the standard is very simple, people, money, and strength. People, people in charge, money, funds, and strength, of course, are planning and execution.

So how to judge whether Blockone has really done a good job in this matter? Just remember one thing:

Any action that does not require "paying the real cost" cannot be counted as "attaching importance", and any effort that does not require taking too much risk in decision-making cannot be counted as "attaching importance". Because only by paying the real cost and taking the risk of decision-making can it mean that someone is really responsible for the result.

This is why, so far, I have not made too many comments on Blockone's voting actions, because this kind of voting does not have to pay "hard costs", let alone take too much decision-making risk. So far, it is only a way to set the minimum node standard and then rotate voting. This is a "nothing goes wrong" approach. I am still waiting for the next move of the EOS Foundation. What I want to see is when, how to establish, how to manage, how to make decisions, strategic planning, funding sources, funding scale, funding purposes, and, How much real money was spent on the Chinese market, on marketing activities, on ecological construction, and on developer support.

I said that BB's participation in domestic blockchain activities is considered a "positive signal", but is it considered enough? Not enough either. Is a Chinese-speaking "senior marketing strategist" enough? Far from enough. In fact, in my opinion, Blockone needs a person in charge at least at the vice president level to lead the formation of a dedicated team to fully launch the development and maintenance work for the Chinese market. There is a very simple reason, power, responsibility and benefit must match, the level of the person in charge is not enough, the authority is not enough, the resources that can be mobilized are not enough, the funds that can be invested are not enough, and of course the responsibilities are not enough. In fact, it also means that the attention is not enough. In the end It also means that nothing can be done.