Over centralization of EOS caused wide controversy again.

On August 22, CIO of Everipedia tweeted that he cannot continue to build dapps on EOS if the network is de facto centralized in the hands of the Chinese. Li Xiaolai, known as China’s Bitcoin ‘tycoon’ and serial investor, commented on the issue, saying, “Without me, how EOS can come into being?” He illustrated by claiming that he has invested in Block five years ago.

He has funded the program four times in a row, adding that he is not “Norman Bethune,” a dedicatory, altruistic, and great physician, medical innovator, and noted communist who once came to China to document the final months of the doctor’s life in China.

Specifically, through the rhetoric, the Bitcoin billionaire indicated that he is not an investor without expecting any favor in return. Now coming to the Chinese oligarchy is irrational, according to him. “Whether Everipedia can be built successfully without such an entity?” Li satirized.

Later, on August 23, in regard to the tweet released by Larry Sanger, Everipedia president Sam stated to clear the air, clarifying that no one will leave EOS and Everipedia. What Larry Sanger intended to express was that the geographical jurisdiction of all top block producers is worrying, which is a governance issue, and there is nothing to do with any particular community, especially the Chinese users. Sam said that Chinese community members are the most outspoken fans of Everipedia and a member of the Everipedia-EOS family. Finally, he firmly stated that they will not leave EOS and that no one will leave Everipedia as well.

Since this year, as search volume of public chains in the same period as EOS has been a cliff-like decline and new generation of public chains like Algorand, Nervos, Palkadot, Cosmos emerging. Even the startups in the EOS ecosystem began to criticize EOS’s community governance.

When EOS first started its node selection, it only needed millions of votes to rank high, but now, to become the top 21 nodes, at least 160 million votes are required. Node structure has been relatively stable to subvert. Node voting is now a profitable business activity, many nodes have set up dividend rights. At present, the revenue of super nodes has dropped by 80%.

Since this year, star chains like EOS, TRON, IOST seem to be dying down. But EOS did not stop moving forward. At the first anniversary of EOS in June, three new products and an update were officially announced. However, these “good” news does not seem to rally its price. After the conference, EOS fell. At present, the public chains have reached the bottleneck, and we are still working very hard to explore.

For EOS, besides the depressed price, the whole public chain is facing the problems of centralization, collusion among nodes, and the stagnation of DApp ecology. Where EOS should go has become the concern of EOS believers.