EOS Block Producers Are 'Colluding', Receiving 'Payoffs', and 'Mutual Voting', Token Holder Alleges

• EOS block producers (BPs) have been accused by Twitter user MapleLeafCap of "colluding."
• EOS's 21 BPs are allegedly receiving payoffs and engaging in "mutual voting."

Maple Leaf Capital (@MapleLeafCap), an EOS investor, recently pointed out that “an internal excel document from Huobi”, one of the 21 EOS block producers, had been “circulating in the Chinese community.” According to MapleLeafCap, the excel file reveals the “collusion, mutual voting, and payoffs” that take place between Chinese block producers (BP).

The Twitter user then shared an article, which makes the following allegations: 

(1) Huobi and many other BPs mutually vote for each other to cement their BP position (2) Huobi openly votes for a few BP candidates in exchange for EOS returns

In allegation 1, Huobi votes for 20 other BPs candidates where 16 of those vote for Huobi as well. As you can see in the image attached to this tweet. pic.twitter.com/VBfFyjWyxU— Maple Leaf Capital (@MapleLeafCap) September 26, 2018

MapleLeafCapital also shared a screenshot (above) that shows crypto firm Huobi voting for 20 different BPs - 16 of which vote for Huobi as well.

In another screenshot posted by the EOS investor, it shows that Huobi receives substantial EOS returns, or payments, from three BP candidates (eosiosg11111, cochainworld, eospaceioeos).

In allegation 2, Huobi votes for eosiosg11111, cochainworld, and eospaceioeos in exchange for 170, 150, and 50% of the returns respectively, as shown below in the tweet. pic.twitter.com/cO2HEkTqnD— Maple Leaf Capital (@MapleLeafCap) September 26, 2018

Commenting on the questionable actions of EOS BPs, MapleLeafCapital said:

As an EOS token holder myself, I view such action with utter disgust, and there is a reason why our Mapleleafcap proxy only votes for a very selective group of Chinese BPs. @MapleLeafCap

The EOS token holder also claimed that EOS’ “integrity” may be “compromised” as 12 of the total 21  crypto platform’s BPs are located in China. In order to resolve these potentially serious issues, MapleLeafCapital recommended  “increased community awareness”, “higher voter participation”, and a “punishing mechanism” for bad actors.

"Blatantly" Against EOS's Mission Statement

He added that such exploitative actions must be addressed immediately as it “blatantly flies in the face of the very thesis” Block.one - the company that developed EOS - had created the crypto platform upon.

MapleLeafCapital further noted that blockchain startup Huobi had been aggressively “pushing” its Huobi Pool Token (HPT) - which he thinks is being done by “blatantly sharing the EOS block rewards with HPT holders in exchange for EOS-lockup.”

In a recent follow-up response by Huobi, crypto news source cnLedger reported that Huobi “denied having financial business” with the EOS BPs - as shown in the leaked spreadsheet. However, Huobi has not commented on the “authenticity” of the excel spreadsheet.

Huobi denies having financial business with the nodes ($EOS BPs) in the leaked spreadsheet. However they have not yet denied the authenticity of the leaked file. "Relevant information is still under further investigation"https://t.co/4oQYY6xM4I https://t.co/qL0wXNbfSI— cnLedger (@cnLedger) September 30, 2018

At present, “relevant information is still under investigation”, cnLedger said.

Failing To Understand The Serious Nature Of Collusion

Notably, the exploitative practices pointed out by MapleLeafCapital may be quite serious and could adversely affect many people. Meltem Demirors, a crypto treasury management professional, commented on the issue by stating that investors only care about “returns” and not “ideologies.”

the best part about $EOS is this won’t matter one bit. investors care about returns, not ideologies. the politics of decentralization are a farce at best. https://t.co/tFrCUaUdAd— Meltem Demirors (@Melt_Dem) September 29, 2018

While this may be true in many other cases, it has been seen by some as a highly inaccurate assessment of the potential harm these types of corrupt activities may have on investors.