If somebody offers me something worth $35.000 (and very liquid and very easy to sell - after all we are not talking about real estate located in Ouagadugu) for ~ $26.000 i.e. well below current fair market value then I would always assume that the seller is either stupid or is a crook. In both cases this would mean that it's high risk transaction and may eventually be voided for the reason of insanity or lack of proper ownership credentials in the first place. Clear case of greed blinding the buyer so don't expect that I would feel sorry for him. He took the gamble and he lost. Does this action violate immutability principle? Well, it does but the whole EOS ecosystem is in statu nascendi so such action is not unthinkable. Plus it is not the first time that blockchain registered transactions are being reversed - ETH/ETC split is good example and here there was no split because blockchain is brand new and split wouldn't make any sense, amounts involved were relatively small and block producers agreed to take common action.
EOS is not "money" and is not "store of value" - its utility token, representing network processing power, so distributing idle power to those who know how to use it makes sense. There is no obligation to hold EOS - there is plenty of other tokens for those who want to limit their activity to having them.
Ah, them controversies, I have almost forgotten about them - will they ever end? Nope 🤣
Well firstly, the asset was NOT very liquid or easy to sell. Secondly, "too good to be true" looking deals does not ALWAYS mean something fishy. Some deals actually guide the prices of the market. I've made several deals below market prices and I'm always looking for such deals whenever I need to buy something. So just the low-price logic is not acceptable to me.
Yeah, it can be an excuse to gain some sympathy but this doesn't mean we should keep calm and just witness what's going on.
It do makes sense when the owner is adequately compensated for it. The tokens have an ownership. Right?
Not always, but in vast majority of cases. Like 95% of them. Greed blinds and on the other end of such deal there might be somebody more clever than you are. Accept the risk or stay away from such "opportunities".
If you have EOS then vote. If you don't then your stance on this subject is irrelevant.
Compensated for doing nothing? By those who actually do something productive? Well here it works differently - you are compensated for doing something and punished for doing nothing. Don't like the logic? Then stay away.
So why do the minority of cases, that are authentic, should be penalised?
You think your power is limited by your own votes! I think you can influence many more votes than your own. That's the difference.
Same is true with your following stance:
If you don't like the logic, why not work for a better one? "Stay away" is not always the best advice imho.
You might call it statistics or social consensus... For the same reason for which you would be prosecuted if caught driving under influence even if the road was to nowhere and totally devoid of traffic so the fact of you being under influence would not matter safety-wise. There is no reason for the society to incentivize greed so if you are lucky you can escape with such a deal but don't expect overwhelming support of your actions. And I still have doubts about those minority cases... all of them involve either uninformed counter-party or counter-party in difficult position forcing him or her to dispose of an asset well below fair value. In both cases there are some issues which can be judged as morally doubtful.
The case in question is clear case of one greedy guy being outsmarted by a thief so the so called "victim" should seek recourse to the thief as EOS community doesn't owe him a thing.
Nope. I think that if you are a member of any given community then you have the right to participate and try to influence the outcome with tools provided. But if you are not a member then mixing up in community affairs smells fishy.
See above. Plus what you call "better logic" is the logic which failed many times in the past ("well, you have been robbed but we can not do anything about it because of holy blockchain principles blah, blah, blah..."). That's why EOS logic is different - it's an experiment exploring different development paths.
You have understood EOS, the author of this article did not and is not even able to verify the credibility of his sources before spreading disinformation.