EOS Explains Why More Than 27 Accounts Were Frozen
The EOS blockchain arbitrator has ordered the Block Producers (BPs) to freeze 27 accounts without any explanation. In its final notice, the EOS Central Arbitration Forum (ECAF) clarified that it has received complaints from individuals regarding the frozen accounts. The EOS controversy has taken another turn as the company arbitrator reviewed the number of accounts from 7 at first to approximately 27 in a recent announcement.
The ECAF Arbitration Order gave clear orders to the BPs to refuse to process transactions for the listed addresses and keys for an indefinite period of time or until the ECAF provides further instructions or notifications.
However, the order did not provide any details about this decision and, in the notice, it said that the logic and reasoning for the order would come at a later date. This certainly received controversial responses from the community and became a topic of debate in social media. Rich Downing from Twitter commented:
“What’s funny about that? Those are probably accounts with stolen coins in them. BP Managers don’t have to explain themselves to you for each and every little action they take. This level of transparency is still mind-blowing. It’s awesome.”
In addition, the ECAF explained the reasons for the measures taken on June the 19th and the 22nd. The accounts were listed for freezing in accordance with the formal complaints submitted by individuals to the ECAF.
The amount of claims indicates that the claimant is the rightful owner of the accounts from which the tokens have been removed without his or her consent. Another claim is that the owner cannot access the accounts for various reasons, such as alleged scams or hacking. In addition, they believe that their accounts are at risk of losing funds or that the owner has already deleted it in violation with the EOS constitution.
The order also states that the plaintiffs have provided solid evidence of personal identity along with other attestations and settlements. So the document concluded that they have ordered the BPs to freeze the accounts so that a proper investigation of each claim can be carried out.
In view of all these actions taken, several users made their opinions known. A redditor asked:
“Can anyone explain how it could be proven that the account holders themselves did not move their tokens and then ask fraudulently to get them back?”
Another user from the same site also commented:
“What I took away from this is that the victims sent a signed transaction from their Eth address that is mapped with their Eos address. Correct me if I’m wrong. So my question is, what if this happens in the future where new accounts are created and they won’t have an Eth address mapped with it? How is verification going to take place?”
The concept of BPs is something that EOS has introduced and it is not yet fully understood how it will work. With arbitrators at the heart of the matter, the situation becomes more complicated. It only remains to be seen how all this research will end while waiting for the decision to be made for the frozen accounts.