Nope, the arbitrators don't do any investigation, it's the parties in dispute, which are to bring up evidence, which then is assessed by arbitrators, who publish their ruling. So there is no ground for me to follow your terminology.
What i would be interested in, what would be your suggestion to do better? Letting scammers, hackers and faulty code, put investors at risk? Because that would be the consequence of dropping arbitration?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
OK, so in your terminology the thief got into a "disagreement" with the victim, then they contacted the arbitrator who assessed the evidence brought forward by the thief and the victim, and made a ruling.
Sounds like a very solid reasoning.
As I said, I have nothing against police and ECAF. They serve a very important role and I wouldn't want live in a country where there is no police (though I'd prefer a blockchain where there's no police, just voluntary arbitration).
Just stop pretending, call ECAF what it really is, and I'm fine with it. What I'm against is twisting reality to hide the truth.
You got the case totally wrong! In this case it was the victims who contacted the arbitrators. They asked that their accounts are freezed, because scammers have got hold of their EOS keys and used them to unstake their tokens!
Yes, you're quite right, it's usually the victim who feels the need to contact the police. Maybe there are some thieves who do that, but usually not the clever ones, I guess.