The document shows Huobi’s votes for 20 (minor) block producers in EOS, and 16 of them voted in favor of Huobi.
An analysis of the document also shows that Huobi had previously had seven BP publishing audiences, with a “public node or website or proprietary information or interaction nodes, etc.,” after a raw translation.
However, they agreed to support the “normal” POs in an agreement with some of them for which Huobi receives a portion of the revenue.
The document states that Huobi voted for eosiosg11111 exchange eos 170 for cochainworld exchange 150 eos and eospaceioeos 50% back.
These arrangements are expected to yield 1,116 Huos EOS per day, currently worth $ 6,000 per day. Moreover, Huboi himself is a block producer who brings them a bit more.
It seems that they vote with the EOS tokens that individuals deposit in their exchanges. Bitfinex is another manufacturer of EOS blocks, and they said a long time ago that they would vote with the EOS of their customers.
The property of EOS is very concentrated, with only 10 addresses with about 50% of all the chips. Scholarships are usually for obvious reasons, but in other public channels, protocol rules have no say and do not directly dominate validation.
In EOS, however, it appears that the exchanges effectively control the network with this highly centralized blockchain, which has only 21 validators. Some of them seem to be controlled by a single entity, Huobi can be an expert.
This is because EOS has fundamental errors and its failure has been proven. The design is similar to Dan Larimer’s previous project, BitShares, which he himself declared to have failed the vote.
Just like now, the Yunbi Exchange was able to milk bitshares with the actors as the disaster unfolded.
EOS increases a $ 4,000,000,000 year to an international organization for this clone Bitshares with the project now in a collusive central agreement collapses as part of the owner and a great trust DAPPS requires that his funds not recovered or grison it will not be frozen.