译文/Translated：
最近我从Block.one辞职之后，我想处理我和EOS以及更大的加密货币行业的关系。我们很多人本来想利用这个科技把自己从国际银行的卡特尔中解脱出来，然而现在这个技术还是面对着大量的审查和规范，看到这里，我的心都碎了。比特币的价格达到市场新高我们都很高兴，但是，比特币的愿景却也慢慢消失，想到这，我不禁潸然泪下。
比特币早期，我们利用它购买和销售。它使赏金和陌生人间的国际交易更加容易。交易费用很低，没有人要考虑追踪费用基准和报税。比特币是所有中介以外的一个功能性交易媒介。
然而，比特币就像以前的黄金一样，已经被监管机制逮住了。隐私迅速消失了，而如果你想要绕过受监管的保管机构，直接只用比特币，那政府的各种手段也会让你失望。于是，比特币就变成了“纯粹另一种金融资产”，其唯一留下的创新是已经被证明的有限供给和政治中立。
比特币在未来很可能取代黄金，达到无法想象的高度。它可能能让你的资产组合免受即将到来的恶性通胀的影响。但是它再也不能让你免受金融压迫了。
EOSIO是工具包，它能够实现公链和私链。然而，EOS、比特币、以太坊三种区块链的相对去中心化程度的讨论可能也会偃旗息鼓，毕竟这三个区块链都沦为相同的监管框架的受害者。
整整五年前，我推出比特股的时候我就想到了去中心化金融，那时候，它还不是流行词。我担心的是，这个梦想也在监管战争中失势了。政府不断阻断你对自己代币的“自主保管”，于是，未获得受监管的保管机构批准和管理的所有智能合约同样也会遭殃。
主要的私密币已经因为反洗钱规范，OFAC（外国资产控制办公室）、和其它规范从交易所下架了。去中心化交易所依靠的是自主保管的BTC，EOS和ETH。如果你想把在去中心化交易所出售私密币获得的收益存到主要交易所，这个行为就算不会被完全禁止，恐怕也会被严格审查。
诚然，我现在讲的所有东西都是以美国中心视角说的。但是，想要摆脱“美国”管辖权，唯一的方法是对使用了你服务的所有人都实行KYC（认识你的客户）。这对于去中心化应用是一个沉重的负担，更是一个不容易外包出去的负担。
最后，任何一个人，只要他搭建一个会产生经济损益产品，用户就需要交税。所以，我在Hive发文不接受经济奖励，因为它们不值得交税。税务局手段越来越高明，隐私越来越少，因此，所有这些基于代币的生态/平台有活下去的机会，除非它们能主动计税、完成1099税务表。要自动完成这样的计算，就需要足够了解每一个购买价格和销售价格。但是，如果用户以去中心化的方式在多个交易所进行交易，这就是不可能实现的。
这样的背景之下，我们要做什么才能让EOS“成功”呢？这个问题没有确切的答案，因为我们每个人对“成功”都有不同的定义，而“成功”的道路可能是完全相反的。我觉得，最常见的“成功”的定义是代币价格高。如果每个购买EOS的人都能赚钱，那EOS就“成功”了。但是，如果EOS要通过完全受监管、中心化、KYC用户的封闭平台才能取得“成功”，这真的好吗？
如果EOS网络被大众接受，但是人们觉得EOS价格就像是赚交易费的公司，这真的好吗？EOS代币是用来购买网络稀缺资源的，比如RAM和CPU时间。或者，EOS网络可以被当成是DAC出售交易。有任何一点经济常识的人都知道加密货币市场是利用某些别的、完全不同于经济和商业模型的价值评估方法。如果禁止价格升值的角度让EOS“成功”，这就需要完全不同的思维了。这就需要把EOS兜售给“货币投机者”。只有当人们相信更多人未来会购买它，价格才会上升。
所以我们来聊聊怎么让更多人使用EOS网络吧。我问了自己一个艰难的问题：“为什么以太坊价格这么高、规模化程度这么有限，人们还是会用以太坊呢？”很明显，利用EOS的时候，除了交易费用，肯定还有其它一些成本。我觉得这个成本就在于基础架构要求用户能够运营一个完整的节点。交易费用对终端用户可能很“便宜”，但是实际的价格却外化到完整节点运营中了，而这是通胀不能支付的。
如果我的公司在推广智能合约，作为“CEO”我会把基础架构作为服务提供给用户，保证每个人都可以部署应用，所有和运行应用相关的成本都包含在交易费用中。EOS和“CEO”最接近的一个概念是被选举出来的超级节点。这些人因为让EOS成为一个好平台获得报酬。请注意，这不是单纯的技术问题。这里说的是把基础架构作为服务、代理节点和保证经济的可持续发展。
如果EOS超级节点要运营API节点、处理所有的应用开发者可能提出的所有阅读查询，那么成本就不会外化。如果EOS超级节点能够为应用需要的PIN文件代理所有的IPFS节点，那么这些应用就可以完全去中心化。超级节点只要通过通胀或费用抵消成本就可以。
所以现在的问题就是，一个代币持有人的社区怎么能“迫使”它们雇佣的超级节点提供所需的服务来吸引更多开发者呢？理论上，代币持有人能够投票选择为网络带来最多价值的超级节点。但是实际上，代币持有人投票选择的却是给回扣的人。就好像苹果的股东选择了一个董事会，它发行新股份，然后把股份作为回扣发给下面的股东一样。
所以说，EOS网络想要持续发展应该怎么做呢？任何一个普通个人能做什么？我们又能开发怎样的技术代码？
人们还提出了一个系统，想要“投票赞助提议”。原则上，这和投票资助超级节点没什么差别。怎样的规则和激励能改变囚徒困境、产生不同的结果？
把民主带到一个都是共产主义者的社会和把同样的民主带到都是自由主义者的国家，结果迥异。只有等到民主带来的经济激励慢慢地把自由主义者变成共产主义者，这个结果才会发生变化。
大规模应用的“成功”和代币升值需要的不单单是技术解决方案的升级，同时还需要有投票权的代币持有人的合作和智慧。针对长期维护代币价格、简化网络上购买CPU时间的经济模型，我提出过倡议。针对超级节点中要增加普通代币持有人的代表权，我提出过倡议。针对通过因为区块丢失惩罚所有人从而推动超级节点的合作，我也提出过倡议。我在Block.one的时候，我手下的团队执行过我的所有倡议，每个都持续了几个月。
现在的问题就是让选举人支持这些倡议。
面对最近的监管环境，EOS社区面临的选择就是要朝去中心化更进一步，还是要朝合规更进一步。如果想要更加去中心化，这就意味着要有意识地限制EOS吞吐量，增加交易费用。这样才能减少运营完整节点的费用，从而减少外部成本。
如果EOS规模增大，应用开发者就会要求大规模的基础架构，而这些架构非常昂贵。能够支撑这种基础架构的企业必须要合规。等到这个企业能够完全合规了，这样一个企业往往运营自己的私人EOSIO区块链还更好。
这样你就了解了，BTC，EOS和ETH都因为它们是脱离了技术基础的货币受到重视。但是这三者都走在被监管的路上，隐私就会彻底丢失。代币想获得资本增长，最大的希望是尽量让其效用转换成金钱以及合规，让机构能够采用它。我相信，质押池模型能够让EOS成为更好的货币，而如果其目标只是大量的资本收益，那么或许唯一的方式就是KYC所有账户，并利用政府批准的合约与政府批准的资产进行交易。
如果社区决定要走这条路，Block.one现在就在很好的位置上，可以带领EOS往前发展。但是，我却不打算让我的创意被政府监管辖制。我们只想创造一些工具，把权力还给人民，所以我们选择别的道路。我们的“收益”不是以金钱衡量的，而是用“自由”衡量的。
原文/Original：
In light of my recent resignation from block.one, I would like to address those with questions about my relationship to EOS and the broader cryptocurrency industry. It breaks my heart to watch as a cloud of censorship and regulation descend over a technology that many of us hoped would free us from the international banking cartels. We all cheer as the price of Bitcoin reaches new all time highs, but I cry as the vision of what Bitcoin promised to be fades away.
In the early days of Bitcoin we would use it to buy and sell. It facilitated bounties and international transactions with strangers. The transaction fees were low and no one worried about tracking cost basis and reporting to the IRS. Bitcoin was a functional medium of exchange free from any intermediaries.
Bitcoin, like gold before it, has been captured by the regulatory apparatus. Privacy is rapidly disappearing and attempts are being made to frustrate those who want to use Bitcoin without a regulated custodian. This turns Bitcoin into “just another financial asset” with the sole remaining innovations being provably limited supply and political neutrality.
Bitcoin may very well replace gold in the future and reach inconceivable highs. It may very well save your portfolio from the coming hyperinflation. But it will no longer save you from financial oppression.
EOSIO is a toolkit that enables both public and private blockchains. Discussions on the relative decentralization of EOS vs Bitcoin vs Ethereum are moot in a world where all three blockchains are falling victim to the same regulatory frameworks.
Decentralized finance is a dream that I introduced with BitShares a full 5 years before it became a buzzword. I fear that this dream is also losing the war of regulation. As efforts grow to block “self custody” of your own tokens, all smart contracts that are not approved and managed by a regulated custodian will also become a victim.
Major privacy coins are being delisted from exchanges because of anti-money laundering regulations, OFAC, and other regulations. Decentralized exchanges will depend upon the ability to self-custody BTC, EOS, and ETH. The proceeds from selling privacy coins on decentralized exchanges will be heavily scrutinized if not blocked entirely when they are deposited to the major exchanges.
Granted, everything I have said so far assumes a United States centric perspective; however, the only way to stay out of “US” jurisdiction is to perform KYC on everyone who uses your service. This is a heavy burden on decentralized applications and a burden that is not easily outsourced.
Lastly, anyone building anything that results in economic profit and loss imposes tax consequences on their users. Tokens like Voice or Hive create tax events every time they change hands. This is why I decline rewards when I post on Hive, they are not worth the tax accounting. With the growing sophistication of the tax authorities and the loss of privacy, none of these token-based ecosystems / platforms stand a chance unless they automatically do all of the tax calculations and boil it down to a 1099. The only way to automate such calculations is to have full knowledge of every purchase price and sale price. Such things are not possible if users are trading on multiple exchanges in a decentralized manner.
With that context what can we do to make EOS “successful”? There is no single answer to that question because we all have different definitions of “success” and the paths to “success” can head in opposite directions. The most common definition of “success” that I see is a high token price. EOS is “successful” if everyone who buys it makes money. What if EOS achieved this “success” by becoming a completely regulated, centralized, walled garden of KYC’d users?
What would the role of the EOS token be in such an environment? What if the EOS network achieved mass adoption, but the EOS price fell to be valued like a company earning transaction fees? The EOS token is used to buy scarce resources on the network, such as RAM and CPU time. Alternatively the EOS network can be viewed as DAC selling transactions. Anyone with any economic sense knows that the cryptocurrency market is utilizing some other valuation method completely divorced from technological and business fundamentals. Making EOS “successful” in terms of price appreciation requires a completely different mindset. It requires marketing EOS to “currency speculators”. The price can only increase if people believe more people will buy it tomorrow.
So let’s talk about getting more people to use the EOS network. I asked myself a hard question: “Why do people use Ethereum when the fees are so high and its scale so limited?”. Clearly there must be some cost to using EOS that is not fully accounted for by the transaction fees. I believe that cost is in the infrastructure requirements to operate a full node. Transaction fees may be “cheap” to the end users, but the real cost are externalized on to full node operators which are not paid by inflation.
If I was the “CEO” of a company in the business of facilitating smart contracts, then I would offer infrastructure as a service and ensure that anyone could deploy applications and that all costs associated with operating these applications were covered by transaction fees. The closest thing EOS has to a “CEO” is the elected block producers. These are the guys who are paid to make EOS a desirable platform. Note, that this is not purely a technology issue. This is about the infrastructure as a service and hosting nodes and economic sustainability.
If the EOS block producers were to operate API nodes that can handle all the read queries app developers can throw at them then costs would not be externalized. If the EOS block producers could host IPFS nodes to pin files needed by apps, then the applications could be fully decentralized. The block producers would then cover their costs via inflation or fees.
So the question becomes, how does a community of token holders “force” their hired block producers to provide the services required to attract more developers? In theory, token holders are supposed to vote in producers that provide the most value to the network. In practice, token holders vote in people who pay them kickbacks. It would be like Apple shareholder’s electing a board that issued new shares and distributed them as kickbacks to a subset of the shareholders.
How then is the EOS network suppose to advance in a sustainable manner? What can any single individual do? What technological code could be developed?
People have proposed a system to “vote to fund proposals”. In principle, this is no different than voting to fund block producers. What rules and incentives will change the game theory to produce a different outcome?
If you bring democracy to a country full of socialists you will get vastly different results than bringing the same democracy to a country full of libertarians. These results can last until the economic incentives of democracy slowly turn the libertarians into socialists.
“Success” of mass adoption and token appreciation requires not just improved technological solutions, but the cooperation and wisdom of the vote-casting token holders. I have put forth proposals designed to align power with long-term commitment to token price and to simplify the economic model of purchasing CPU time on the network. I have put forth proposals to increase the representation of token holders among the block producers. I have put forth proposals to encourage cooperation of producers by punishing everyone if anyone misses a block. While at block.one I led a team that implemented all of these proposals in a matter of months.
Now it is a matter of getting voters to approve them.
In light of the recent regulatory environment, the EOS community has a choice between moving toward more decentralization or toward more compliance with regulation. Moving toward more decentralization would mean intentionally limiting EOS throughput and therefore raising transaction costs. This would be done to reduce the cost of operating a full node which will minimize externalized costs.
If EOS is to grow in scale, then application developers will require large scale infrastructure which is costly to operate. A business able to support this infrastructure would have to comply with regulations. By the time all the regulations are complied with, such a business is usually better off operating their own private EOSIO chain.
So there you have it, BTC, EOS and ETH are all being valued as currencies disconnected from technological fundamentals. All three are on a path to be captured by regulators with a complete loss of privacy. The best hope a token can have for capital gains is to maximize its utility as money and its compliance with regulations and work to get institutions adopt it. I believe that the staking pool model will make EOS a better currency and that KYC’d accounts with regulator approved smart contracts trading regulator approved assets may be the only way forward if massive capital gains are the goal.
Block.one is in the ideal position to take EOS in this direction if the community chooses to go that route. I, on the other hand, am not interested in having my innovation limited by the whims of government regulators. Those of us interested in creating tools that return power to the people will need to look elsewhere. Our “profit” is not measured in dollars, but in “freedom”.
原文链接/Original URL:
