EOS (EOS) freezes 27 accounts, but what caused the ban?
EOS (EOS) just finished its MainNet token swap and the Blockchain network has been live for just over a week. But the Blockchain network’s unusual approach to governance has got people talking – again! EOS recently took to Medium to announce that the EOS Resource Planner is now live. The crypto company had announced that work on the planner had started 3 months ago.
The EOS Core Arbitration Forum (ECAF) was organized to resolve any disputes in the EOS community. According to the “Emergency Measure of Protection Order,” block producers have been directed to not process transactions from 27 different wallet addresses. This order which was issues on the 22nd of June by the ECAF does not specify the reason behind the ban on processing transactions from these accounts.
Here’s an excerpt from the announcement which reads,
“It is hereby ordered that the EOS Block Producers refuse to process transactions for the following accounts and keys indefinitely. (Until further official notice and instruction from the ECAF.)”
The document signed by Sam Sapoznick, in the capacity of ECAF Interim Emergency Arbitrator says,
“The logic and reasoning for this Order will be posted at a later date.”
The order issued without a reason specified has raised quite a hue and cry in the crypto community. And this is not the first time that EOS transactions have been censored. Earlier on June 17th, 7 accounts on the EOS Blockchain were frozen. But then it was said that the accounts were frozen in a bid to stop several thefts.
But what could be the reason for freezing these 27 EOS accounts?
While there has been no official information on why these 27 accounts have been frozen, there’s a lot of speculation. Here are our thoughts on the reason behind banning these accounts. It definitely doesn’t look like an arbitrary, tyrannical ban to us. It could be that it was in response to possibility of theft.
We did a little digging to know more. When you go a bit deeper into those 27 frozen accounts, you’ll see an account which has a bit of suspicious activity. A few users on Reddit spotted it first. A Redditor called AnubisRooster says the account “3urgwfq32tmq” seems to be receiving funds from most other accounts. Upon following the transaction trail it was found that the funds in this account were being moved to two of the other listed accounts.
This seems very suspicious, especially the amount of washing/consolidation occurring on one main account holder. It could be that this one account holder has scammed a bunch of other people of their keys. And with these keys he’s ransacking the other accounts which could’ve led to the accounts being frozen.
While a lot of people in the crypto community think that it is quite like civil forfeiture, we don’t think that’s the case. Some of them even think it’s the work of nefarious elements working from within. But this could prove to be particularly dangerous for the cryptocurrency world on a whole and we don’t think that was the reason behind the ECAF order. If someone is moving funds around into several accounts and his activity is suspicious, he/she needs to be netted. And it would be justified too because it could lead to this person stealing EOS coins worth around $1 million.
A Redditor called twelker1625 commented on a thread discussing the topic saying,
“The accounts were frozen at the request of the rightful owners AFTER they submitted proof. Though the system is still in its infancy and not finalized, it is working as it was designed to do.”
But no proof was forthcoming when the user was asked where got the information about the owners submitting proof. The ECAF ruling has brought in a deluge of comments on why they shouldn’t have done it. But if it was to actually apprehend those involved in phishing then it’s definitely justified, according to us.
Image via Shutterstock
Join our Telegram group