应 Brock Pierce 的要求，为了了解由于 Block.one 的代币归属已停止，是否可以进行正在进行的谈判，前 30 名区块生产者 (BP) 中的大多数于 12 月 9 日 UTC 时间 0200 举行会议。
在过去的一年中，我们看到 Block.one 为 EOSIO 输出的代码生成速度和质量显着下降。 在许多作为原始代码创建者的高级开发人员开始离开且Block.one 重新加入 EOS 社区后，下降是显而易见的，其中包括创始人和前 CTO Daniel Larimer 以及其他原始核心贡献者。 留在 Block.one 的少数高级开发人员被重新定位到 Bullish 工作。 这在最新的两个 EOSIO 迭代版本 EOSIO 2.1 和 EOSIO 2.2 中很明显。
在过去的三年里，EOS 社区经常讨论 Block.one 是否兑现了他们在代币销售期间所做的承诺，因为B1每天从归属代币中获得大约 27,400 个 EOS，大致相当于所有约 60 个BP收入总和加在一起。无论意见是什么，这些没有完成的承诺包括：没有实现任何类型的区块链跨链通信 (IBC) 解决方案、从未实现「每秒 100 万笔交易」的承诺、推出超过 1000 个 dApp、去中心化的社交媒体平台（即voice）等。
这部分非常客观，整个 EOS 社区围绕归属代币的对话频率和深度都有所增加。 Block.one 未能提供持续的核心代码开发不仅令 EOS 失望，而且令所有其他 EOSIO 迭代以及建立在或围绕这些生态系统的应用程序和业务都令人失望。 EOS 上有许多 BP 也为其他公共 EOSIO 链提供基础设施，因此绝对不能低估这种核心开发支持中断的影响。
这些质疑在 11 月初达到高潮，当时 Block.one 发布了一份新闻稿，宣布他们已向 Brock Pierce 出售了 4500 万个 EOS 代币，以推出 Helios VC。 就其本身而言，这不是一个令人担忧的问题。 问题是在于售出的 4500 万个代币中，只有 800 万个代币已完成重新归属，而 3700 万个代币将在接下来的大约 7 年中分配。
通过目前的共识方式，确定归属代币合法且应当属于网络公用。 Block.one 试图在未咨询合法所有者的情况下出售其不拥有的资产。
通过 EOS 网络基金会 (ENF)，该网络于 11 月 7 日正式开始与 Brendan Blumer 和 Brock Pierce 进行讨论，并于 11 月 10 日举行了面对面的会议。 最终拥有链上治理权的 BP 会随时了解这些谈判，并向 ENF 提供反馈和指导。 在接下来的四个星期里，反复提出了建议。
BP 认为，可以对市场做出的最有力的声明需要来自 Block.one：希望他使用代币销售期间筹集的 41 亿美元资金进行外部注资，期间筹集的 41亿美元资进行外部注资（目前估值超过100亿美元) 用于持续的生态系统维护和增长。BP们 多次要求这样做，但每次都被B1迅速拒绝。、
最终提案于 11 月 24 日提出，EOS网络将保留 6700 万个归属代币中的 3000 万个，以及来自 Block.1 的 200 万个已归属代币之一的贡献，以及 EOSIO 知识产权（IP ) 到 EOS 社区。 这本质上是EOS网络用 3500 万个EOS交换获得了EOSIO的IP。 该提案只是对双方于 11 月 10 日分道扬镳时留下的内容略有修改。 在整个过程中，众所周知，Block.one并不拥有EOSIO IP当他们将其转移给了Bullish的时候，且网络一直没有忽略这个事实。
最终，让 Block.one 承认他们未能兑现其某些承诺，同时公开提出与网络合作以获取 EOSIO IP，这是我们的让步，并且EOS网络已经走了很长一段路为了修复随着时间的推移而受到侵蚀的信任。
在Block.one 的意图变得明显后，ENF 安排并起草一份条款清单（意向书）。尽管一再告诉 ENF 将提供一份（早在 11 月 10 日），但B1没有及时进行回应。
前 30 名 BP 中的大多数在 11 月 30 日晚上举行会议，并同意将 Block.one 的截止日期定为 12 月 7 日 UTC 时间 22：59，以便 Block.one 公开承认该提案，同时知道该提案的实施需要时间。 该提案的实施没有截止日期。 双方一致认为，现阶段由 Block.one 公开这个方案是可以寄接受的。 该网络已经在其最后公开了条款和截止日期，我们想要的只是 Block.one 公开承认和确认。
在这个截止日期之前，BP 部署了一个链上提案，一个多重签名（MSIG），其中包含停止向 Block.one 授予代币的代码执行。
ENF 公开表示，BP 将在截止日期前每天向 MSIG 添加签名。 这将允许 EOS 代币持有者在他们不同意该过程和那些表示支持归属停止的情况下对他们的投票进行调整，从而允许在管理 EOS 网络的共识机制下继续进行正当程序。 在此之前的整个 11 月，应用了相同的治理流程。
12 月 5 日，Block.one 公开了协议的代币部分。 但是，该公告仍然没有公开提及该 IP。
到 12 月 7 日，超过 20 位排名靠前的 BP 已经公开并在链上公开了他们的立场，为 EOS 代币持有者提供了正当程序。 这让代币持有者有机会关注正在进行的谈判，并且可以改变他们的投票在他们不同意已经明确表明其立场的 BP 的情况下。
最终 Block.one 未能在截止日期前完成，MSIG 在 4 小时后于 12 月 8 日 04:55 UTC 执行。
停止向 Block.one 授予代币是网络确定的一项行动，以表达情况的严重性和BP的坚决，突出了区块链的力量，使社区能够站起来反对与其方向不一致的公司利益 . 这代表了区块链的精神和精神，也是区块链的目的。
没有没收，Block.one 账户中没有代币被拿走，账户没有更改，密钥没有修改。 网络不再从 eosio.stake 账户支付 Block.one，仅此而已。
这不意味着Block.one 会被免除其责任，因为他们仍然持有在长达一年的代币销售期间筹集的全部资金以及已经归属的约 3200 万 EOS。 他们必须继续履行在代币销售期间和之后做出的承诺。EOSIO IP 属于私人营利实体而不属于 EOS 社区的这个观点与网络共识不符。
区块链共识机制的目标是将那些有能力生产区块的人和那些持有者联系起来。 确定 BP 是否确实代表了利益攸关者的共识是很困难的。 在理想的共识机制中，由网络赋予权力的人做出的任何决定都应该与利益相关者的共识完全一致。
使用人们可能不同意的决定的最终结果来证明或谴责一个过程的这种行为将永远分裂我们，手段必须是合理的。 如果您相信代币加权治理，那么只要遵循该流程，最终结果就是合理的。 参与 EOS 的每个人都同意这个过程，遵循这个过程，因此尊重和支持结果的合法性是有道理的。
这并不是说我们不能继续努力建立更好的机制。事实上，EOS 网络基金会的第一笔投资是通过财务支持 EdenOnEOS 和 Dan Larimer 的方式进行的。我们将继续这样做，因为更好的共识一致性可以加强所有利益相关者的网络。
EOS网络在试图纠正 11 月初发生的错误，且表现出了良好的意愿，以便 Block.one 能够及时履行与 Brock 的协议，同时在此过程中使网络完整。布兰登也公开承认了这一点。
在 11 月份，EOS 代币持有者社区团结起来，对 Block.one 表示怀疑，并伸出橄榄枝，希望达成协议，这样我们就可以结束我们历史上的这一章。社区给了 Block.one 一个弥补的机会，这样我们就可以在尊重和团结的情况下走同样的道路。这是网络的愿望。
ENF 将继续作为全球最大 DAO 的代表领导 EOS 网络。在我们进入一个新时代时，我们将张开双臂欢迎新的投资者、开发商、企业和个人。
The majority of the top 30 block producers (BPs) met at the request of Brock Pierce on December 9th at 0200 UTC to see if ongoing negotiations would be possible since the vesting of tokens to Block.one has stopped.
The below statement is being made as an outcome of those discussions.
Over the course of the last year, we have seen a significant decline in the rate and quality of code production being output for EOSIO by Block.one. The decline was obvious after many of the senior developers who were the creators of the original code started leaving Block.one to re-join the EOS community, including the founder and ex-CTO Daniel Larimer and other original core contributors. The few senior developers that were remaining in Block.one were repurposed to work on Bullish. This was apparent in the latest two EOSIO iterations, EOSIO 2.1 and EOSIO 2.2.
During the last three years, a frequent conversation in the EOS community has been whether or not Block.one was living up to the commitments they made during the token sale as they were being paid from vesting tokens approximately 27,400 EOS daily, roughly the equivalent of all ~60 paid BPs combined. Some of the failed commitments include not having deployed any kind of inter-blockchain communication (IBC) solution, promise of 1 million transactions per second never reached, over 1000 dApps at launch, decentralized social media platform (i.e. Voice), and more.
Regardless of where opinions fell, one thing that was always a constant was that Block.one was key to core code development. Once this final leg started to crumble this opinion was no longer subjective.
This part was very objective, and the frequency and depth of conversations surrounding the vesting tokens increased throughout the whole EOS community. Block.one’s failure to provide continued core code developments wasn’t just a disappointing letdown for EOS, but for all other EOSIO iterations and the applications and businesses built on or around each of those ecosystems. There are many BPs on EOS who also provide infrastructure for other public EOSIO chains as well, so the impact of this breakdown in core development support cannot be understated.
These conversations culminated in early November when Block.one made a press release announcing they had sold 45 million EOS tokens to Brock Pierce in order to launch Helios VC. In and by itself, this was not an issue of concern. The issue was that of the 45 million tokens sold, only 8 million tokens were vested, whilst 37 million tokens would be still vesting for the next ~7 years.
Through the current means of consensus it was determined that the vesting tokens legally and rightfully belonged to the network. Block.one attempted to sell the rights to assets it did not own without consulting the rightful owners.
Through the EOS Network Foundation (ENF) the network formally began engaging in discussions with Brendan Blumer and Brock Pierce on November 7th, leading to an in-person meeting on November 10th. The BPs, who ultimately have the governance power on-chain, were kept apprised of these negotiations and provided feedback and guidance to the ENF. Back and forth proposals ensued during the following four weeks.
The BPs believed that the most powerful statement that could be made to the market would need to originate from Block.one: an external capital injection using the $4.1B of funds raised during the token sale (currently valued at over ~$10B) to be used for ongoing ecosystem maintenance and growth. This was requested on repeated occasions, but swiftly rejected each time.
The final proposal was put forth on November 24th whereby the network would keep 30 million of the 67 million vesting tokens alongside a contribution from Block.one of 2 million already vested tokens, as well as the transfer of ownership for the EOSIO intellectual property (IP) to the EOS community. This was essentially an exchange of 35 million EOS for the EOSIO IP. This proposal was only a slight modification from what the parties left with when they parted ways on November 10th. Throughout this entire process, it had been known that Block.one did not own the EOSIO IP since they had transferred it to Bullish, consideration by the network was always given to this fact.
Ultimately, having Block.one admit that they had failed to live up to some of its commitments, whilst publicly coming to the table to offer to work with the network to acquire the EOSIO IP, would have been a sign of humility, and would have gone a long way to start mending trust that had eroded over time.
The ENF arranged for a term sheet (letter of intent) to be drafted once it became apparent Block.one would not be doing so in a timely manner, despite repeatedly telling the ENF it would be providing one (as early as November 10th).
The majority of the top 30 BPs met on the evening of November 30th and agreed to put a deadline of December 7th at 2259 UTC for Block.one to publicly acknowledge the proposal, while knowing that the implementation of the proposal would take time. No deadline was put on the implementation of the proposal. Both parties agreed that having the intent being made public by Block.one would be satisfactory at this stage. The network had already made the terms and deadlines known publicly on its end, all we wanted was for Block.one to acknowledge and confirm publicly.
Alongside this deadline, the BPs deployed an on-chain proposal, a multisig (MSIG), that contained code execution stopping the vesting of tokens towards Block.one.
The ENF made it known publicly that BPs would be adding signatures daily to the MSIG leading up to the deadline. This would allow for the EOS token holders to make adjustments to their voting should they be in disagreement with the process and those signaling support for vesting stop, allowing for continued due process under the consensus mechanism that governs the EOS network. Throughout the entire month of November leading up to this date, the same governance process applied.
On December 5th, Block.one made the token component of the agreement public. However, the announcement was still lacking any public mention of the IP.
By December 7th, over 20 of the top ranked BPs had made their positions known publicly and on-chain affording due process for the EOS token holders. This gave token holders a chance to follow the on-going negotiations and change their votes if they did not agree with the BPs who had made their positions known and clear.
Ultimately Block.one failed to meet the deadline and the MSIG was executed 4 hours later on December 8th at 0455 UTC.
Stopping the vesting of tokens to Block.one was an action the network determined was necessary to express the severity and sincerity of the situation, highlighting the power of the blockchain to enable a community to stand up against corporate interests that don’t align with theirs. This represents the blockchain ethos and spirit and is what blockchains were made for.
There was no confiscation, no tokens in the Block.one account were taken, the account was not changed, keys were not modified. The network is no longer paying Block.one from the eosio.stake account, that is all.
By no means is Block.one being absolved of its responsibilities as it still holds the entirety of the funds raised during the year long token sale as well as the ~32 million EOS that have already vested. They must continue to fulfil their commitments made during, and subsequent to, the token sale. The notion that the EOSIO IP belongs in the hands of a private for profit entity and not in the hands of the EOS community does not sit well with the network.
The goal of a blockchain consensus mechanism is to align those with the power to produce blocks and those with value at stake. Determining whether BPs indeed represent the consensus of those with the most at stake is difficult. In an ideal consensus mechanism any decisions made by those given power by the network would perfectly align with stakeholder consensus.
Using the end result of a decision that one may disagree with to justify or condemn a process will forever divide us. The means must justify themselves. If you believe in token weighted governance, the end is justified so long as the process was followed. Everyone involved in EOS consented to the process, the process was followed, therefore respecting and supporting the legitimacy of the outcome is justified.
This is not to say that we must not continue working towards building better mechanisms. In fact, the first investment made by the EOS Network Foundation was made by way of financially supporting EdenOnEOS and Dan Larimer. We will continue doing so as better consensus alignment strengthens the network for all stakeholders.
The network has extended nothing but good will in attempting to correct the wrong that occurred earlier in November so that Block.one could live up to its agreement with Brock in a timely fashion, while also making the network whole in the process. Brendan has publicly acknowledged this.
During the month of November, the community of EOS token holders rallied to give Block.one the benefit of the doubt and extend an olive branch in hopes of reaching an agreement so we could bring closure to this chapter in our history. The community gave Block.one an opportunity to make amends so we could walk the same path with respect and unity going forward. This is the network’s wish.
The ENF will continue to lead the EOS Network as the representatives of the largest DAO in the world. We welcome new investors, developers, businesses and individuals with open arms as we enter a new era.
To quote Margaret Mead,
“Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed people to change the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has.”