Let’s see what Travis Moore thinks about the prospects of EOS after he reads Shelby Moore’s blog published just now:

https://steemit.com/blockchain/@anonymint/consortium-blockchains-e-g-dpos-and-tendermint-can-t-internet-scale (Archived: http://archive.is/zLuR0)

Alternative link: https://busy.org/blockchain/@anonymint/consortium-blockchains-e-g-dpos-and-tendermint-can-t-internet-scale

The math which proves that Dan is not qualified is in the above blog.

If Travis’ goal is world impact and really wants to invest in decentralization as he claims (if he is really serious about building it out decentralized to 100s of millions of users), then he better not make the mistake Mark Zuckerburg made (which nearly caused him to lose Facebook) and instead invest with my decentralized ledger design instead.

Besides afaik EOS (unlike Steem) has no significant onboarding model. Even Brock admits the goal is all about the size/production of the community that can be onboarded. The tokens are being issued to speculators, not to users. So any apps that want to involve users and tokens (i.e. token gamification), are depending on users to go buy tokens which they will not do (instead EOS expects apps to hodl tokens, delegate their bandwidth to users, and profit on the speculative rise in the value of their hodled tokens). EOS expects the apps to pay for the usage of the blockchain by hodling tokens, yet even though that is dubious enough as is, I also point out in my blog that there is no funding for the websocket servers of an app for example (which was the discussion upthread about the DDoS attack).

Dan is rushing this because he (and apparently Brock Pierce, who is a founding board member of EOS and was founding board member of the 2013 Mastercoin ICO “scam” and who might have shady past) saw a huge $2 billion money grab to go grab asap and the technical and adoption/ecosystem market options are not well thought out.

UPDATE: We have @chryspano a whale-dolphin at Steem abusing the downvoting feature to censor the images and my entire blog post at Steem is now hidden (so much for the power of decentralization when the blockchain is overlorded by whales). Note the busy.org rendering of my blog page is still intact as that site apparently doesn’t enforce Steemit’s whale-controlled censorship.

Also why Travis would get tied up with the probable illegality of the EOS tokens which I explained in detail upthread. I’ll presume Travis is smarter than Dan.

Brock Pierce claims EOS only sold tokens to USA persons, but I documented upthread (and this all archived) that is not the case. Brock also seems to think that 99% of the securities regulation enforcement risk comes from taking funds from USA persons, but I think that is an exaggeration! Afaik, the UK and Canada also have significant securities regulation. Perhaps he means perhaps only the USA has the wherewithal to really fuck you up if they want to. I realize lawyering up and jurisdictional gaming of securities regulation is strategy, but also I think I have documented that the Block.one token sale is about as blatant of a willful attempt to violate securities regulation that I have analysed. Including massive misrepresentation of material facts, which is thus the fraud element the SEC needs to further motivate them. No need to repeat my analysis which is already upthread. I suppose Brock Pierce is very well connected in venture capital and investment banking circles (he mentioned in another video being friends with Goldman Sachs, so I have my suspicions that the regulators are being bought behind the curtain, which is perhaps maybe why you need to grab $2 billion). Note I think the entire securities regulation game is a corruptible mess that needs to be disrupted/disintermediated anyway, so I’m not relying on the SEC to aid my competition against Dan and EOS. I’m just saying whoever partners with Dan’s centralized Rube Goldberg shit, is going to get their butts kicked in the free market by decentralized Internet scalable designs and projects which scale more bottom-up, virally, and not top-down overlording as per the DPoS/EOS/Steem (aka @dantheman) model.

But why would developers want to put their entire future life at risk of going to jail if they do not need to? As I said, afaics the incentives for developers on EOS’ are not good. You have Block.one with $2 billion in capital, so they are going to dole it out to developers and basically pick the winners and losers instead of the free market. Has my blog post linked above not demonstrated that these dudes are far from being sufficiently omniscient and technologically astute. The truly ironic reality is that the best developers work not mostly just for money but because they want to impact the world, thus they will favor decentralization over top-down scams. And the irony will likely be that developers who approach Block.one will be scamming Block.one to get a slice of the $2 billion. Satan operates this way. Block.one scams the greater fool speculators, then the developers of apps will scam the greater fools at Block.one

Why would an independent development group go work to build the other guy’s token, when you can make your own? This is why there’s very few expert developers available for hire in our ecosystem. You’d only join EOS because you’d been fooled by some ideological+technobabble BS or you’re not very capable, i.e. you’re better at scamming than creating something to impact the world, or because you presume no other option will have sufficient economies-of-scale or that all the momentum will go to EOS (the latter of which I think would be an incorrect analysis).

Another potential problem with taking an uncapped amount of fundraising over a year’s time, is that it’s possible in some cases to deplete the market of future buyers of the token. EOS will have to end being a Top 5 market cap in our sector and possibly even necessary to onboard new capital from outside our existing speculator ecosystem, because they will have taken $2 billion of out our ecosystem in the ICO.