Introduction
The EOS Block Producer (BP) Monthly Meeting is the foundational platform that promotes consistent and open communication between the top 30 EOS BPs and the EOS Network Foundation (ENF). These gatherings are designed to foster a collaborative environment where network operators and custodians can engage in constructive dialogue, share insights, and work together towards the common goal of advancing and strengthening the EOS ecosystem. Through these discussions, the community aims to address challenges, explore new opportunities, and implement strategies that align with the network's long-term vision for innovation and growth.
Conference overview
The meeting started at 02:00 UTC on February 28, 2024, with a total of 22 nodes (BPs) and a total of 35 participants. To accommodate a diverse global audience, the Interprefy tool was used for real-time translation in multiple languages, facilitating effective communication throughout the conference.
Beatrice Wang, EOS Network Foundation (ENF) Communications Manager, welcomed the attendees and introduced the agenda. The meeting covered a wide range of topics, including:
Recover+ PayCash Property Recovery Update: This section is dedicated to sharing the events of Francis Sangkuan’s successful collaboration with BPs, focusing on the strategic execution of the operation and its results.
Leap 6.0 Progress: Yves provided an update on the Leap 6.0 upgrade, detailing the timeline for code completion, testing protocols, and the critical role of BPs in ensuring a smooth deployment, scheduled for July 31st.
Transitioning LEAP 6.0 to a Business Source License (BSL): A proposal to transition from the current MIT license to the BSL has been proposed, with the goal of ensuring that commercial users contribute to development costs while keeping the code base accessible.
Exploring RAM payment proposal for block producers: Given the growing interest in RAM in the ecosystem and its potential impact, discussions explored the possibility of compensating BPs with RAM instead of EOS.
RAM Fee Redistribution: At the core of this topic is a proposal to redirect RAM fees from contributing to REX to purchasing and locking RAM, with the goal of managing BP infrastructure needs as RAM usage grows.
exSat Project Profile: This session explored the EOS and BTC L2 collaboration, with the “exSat” project at the forefront, outlining its unique proposition and strategic plan to attract venture capital interest.
Rethinking EOS Token Economics: Prompted by a tweet from Yves, the discussion sparked thoughts on a radical shift in EOS token economics, including capping EOS supply and changing the token distribution model to revitalize the ecosystem.
Following the introductions, a deep dive on these topics was moderated by Yves La Rose, Founder and CEO of ENF. His presentation aimed to address current initiatives, solicit feedback from BPs, and outline the strategic direction of the EOS network. Discussions focused on collaboratively developing and enhancing the overall functionality and market position of the EOS ecosystem.
Recover+ PayCash Property Recovery Update
Yves La Rose expressed his sincere gratitude to Francis Sangkuan, the Recover+ project leader, BP and everyone involved in the successful recovery. The operation was outlined and next steps discussed.
Operational Overview: The Recover+ PayCash event took approximately nine months to execute, demonstrating the precision and collaboration within the EOS ecosystem. After careful planning, MSIG successfully recovered approximately 2 million EOS.
Stealth and efficiency: The operation was conducted carefully to avoid alerting the hackers, allowing for smooth execution. The funds are currently frozen, and PayCash and Recover+ are analyzing the data in preparation for the final recovery proposal on March 5.
Recovery Process: After receiving the necessary 15/21 BP signatures, the +7 day delay setting for token movement will be activated. After this period, funds are expected to be returned to PayCash.
Recovery Fee: PayCash has committed to pay a 5% recovery fee to support the ongoing operation and maintenance of Recover+. This is equivalent to approximately $100,000 USD.
Unique EOS Features: Yves La Rose emphasized that the recovery operation demonstrated a unique feature of EOS that is not found in other EVMs.
For more information, see the full article detailing the Recover+ operation:
Leap 6.0 Progress
Confirmation of Leap 6.0 upgrade schedule. Yves confirmed that the code for Leap 6.0 is expected to be completed, merged, and ready for deployment on the testnet in early April. The deployment of Leap 6.0, with instant finality and the new Savanna consensus algorithm, is scheduled for July 31st, earlier than the originally planned fall release. ENF is working to accelerate this process to ensure it is ready by the end of July.
Yves stressed the need for BP collaboration, especially for testing and deployment on the Jungle testnet, and mentioned the collaboration with the CryptoLions team. In order to accommodate testing and maintain stability for current Jungle 4 users, two new versions of Jungle will be launched. The first version (called Jungle 5.0) will test updates, and the second, more private version will allow for rapid iteration of the code.
He outlined a strict timeline to meet the July 31 deadline, with the code expected to be deployed and ready for activation by this date. Coordination with BPs is critical, especially for new components in Leap 6.0 such as block finalizers and key management. ENF has already begun coordinating with exchanges and all EOS node operators, and plans to increase outreach efforts in the coming months to prepare for the hard fork and ensure the upgrade process goes smoothly.
For more information, see the full article detailing the Leap 6 upgrade:
Proposal to convert LEAP 6.0 to a commercial source license
Yves then brought up a proposal that has been circulating among some EOS community members, calling for significant changes to the licensing of the LEAP 6.0 software.
suggestion:
The proposal proposes not to continue using the MIT license, which allows unrestricted use, but to move to a Business Source License (BSL) similar to Uniswap. This license would still keep the code open source, but would require commercial users to obtain permission from the EOS Network Foundation (ENF). The main rationale for this shift is to ensure that those who gain commercial benefits from the software contribute to its development costs.
Although previous efforts by the Antelope Alliance to encourage collaborative development and cost sharing between different chains have had little success, for core code development such as Leap, EOS has borne 100% of the development costs. For features like Instant Finality, other chains have not been rewarded in terms of core development contributions or financial support, even if the contributions required are small.
The proposal is intended to protect the investment of EOS token holders and ensure that commercial entities using EOS technology contribute to its ecosystem. However, La Rose acknowledged that there are potential negative effects, including tensions with other blockchains and impacts on BPs operating across different blockchains.
Summary of Responses and Alternative Proposals
During the discussion on the proposal to implement a Business Source License (BSL) for LEAP 6.0, key participants expressed opposing views on the licensing approach and alternative solutions.
Aaron Cox (Greymass)
Opposition to the BSL proposal: Aaron Cox highlighted the practical and financial impacts of maintaining different software variants under the BSL model. His main concern is that the effort and cost of adapting exclusive versions of non-paying chains may outweigh any potential revenue from licensing fees. He pointed out the logistical challenges faced by developers and operators in maintaining compatibility, and the increased burden on organizations such as Greymass to support these variants.
Alternative suggestions: While Cox did not propose specific alternatives to the BSL model during the discussion, his comments highlighted the need for a solution that does not impose additional costs on developers and maintains the integrity of the unified codebase. His views suggest that people prefer an approach that encourages collaboration and joint contributions without disrupting the ecosystem.
Guillaume Babin-Trembley “Gnome” (EOS Titan)
Opposition to the BSL proposal: Guillaume opposed this approach, arguing that given the existing contracts between the Antelope consortium chains, this could be seen as a unilateral and potentially disrespectful decision.
Alternative Proposal: Guillaume suggested revisiting a concept that was previously discussed within the Alliance, which did not gain traction at the time. He proposed the idea of the SUPRA token, or a similar concept, which could serve as a unifying element for the Alliance. This approach would involve the creation of an official Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) network supported by an inter-chain official contract. Membership in this network could be paid, and the SUPRA token could represent a weighted basket of tokens from member chains. Guillaume’s proposal aims to promote collaboration and mutual benefit, stressing the need for creative solutions to ensure that all parties involved have a vested interest in the success and support of a shared codebase. He advocated for dialogue and negotiation with Alliance members to explore this innovative revenue model, and highlighted the changed financial situation of chains such as WAX and Telos, which may now be more willing to contribute.
Tony Tsao
Opposition to the BSL proposal: Tony is concerned that a unilateral decision to impose a license fee could divide the community and hinder further development of EOS. He believes that this approach is not in line with the spirit of blockchain and could lead to conflict.
Alternative Suggestions: Tony proposed a unique approach, suggesting an Infrastructure as a Service (IFaaS) model. Rather than charging directly for source code, this model would provide infrastructure services (e.g. Instant Finality) that chains can use by staking resources such as RAM or EOS. The idea is similar to requiring users to stake resources in order to access and use certain services. Tony further elaborated on a mechanism whereby consortium chains could issue their own token rewards to those who stake EOS/RAM, thereby encouraging the staking and utilization of EOS resources while providing income opportunities for users. This model draws inspiration from Polkadot’s slot bidding mechanism, suggesting that there can be more blockchain-oriented ways to encourage contribution and participation rather than simple licensing fees. Tony stressed the need for a model that benefits all parties, and suggested that any approach should ensure that developers are compensated while fostering a cooperative and non-divisive atmosphere within the broader EOS ecosystem.
Summarize
In conversations about the proposal to transition LEAP 6.0 to a Business Source License (BSL), there was widespread agreement on the importance of on-chain contributions that benefit from the Antelope codebase, which is primarily maintained by EOS engineers and heavily supported by ENF. This discussion reflects the recognition within the EOS community of the value of collaborative development and equitable contributions to the long-term health and progress of the ecosystem.
However, the conversation also acknowledged the need for further dialogue and exploration, as there is no unanimous consensus on the approach. The sense of urgency for the beneficiary chain to increase participation and support was palpable, but it was also clear that no decision had been made. This understanding called for more active participation from all parties involved, emphasizing that continued discussion is critical to reaching a solution that will benefit the entire EOS ecosystem.
If any other Antelope-based chains have questions or concerns about their products or chain’s access to BSL, we encourage them to contact us via email at licensing@eosnetwork.com.
Exploring the RAM Payment Proposal for Block Producers
Yves La Rose then presented another proposal that has recently gained traction in the community due to the growing interest and narrative around RAM in the EOS ecosystem. He pointed out that RAM has a large stake, approximately 14 million EOS, and highlighted recent market activity following the decision to stop RAM issuance.
The core of the proposal is to change the payment method for block producers (BPs) from EOS to RAM. The purpose of this adjustment is to take advantage of the increased interest in RAM, allowing BPs to either use RAM for their applications, speculate, or sell it back to the system in exchange for EOS, albeit paying a 0.5% sales fee. Yves pointed out that most BPs currently take about a month to accumulate EOS payments before converting to fiat currency, suggesting that RAM may follow a similar pattern, which may bring buying pressure to RAM during the accumulation period.
Yves also mentioned possible adjustments to the proposal to reduce disadvantages such as administrative burdens and sales fees. Alternatives could include giving BPs the choice of being paid in RAM or EOS, eliminating purchase fees for acquiring RAM through the system, and charging only a 0.5% fee when selling RAM. He expressed interest in exploring what these changes would entail in terms of code modifications and deployments, and seeking feedback on whether BPs would be interested in being paid in RAM instead of EOS.
The discussion on Yves La Rose’s RAM payment proposal has generated a variety of opinions among block producers (BPs) and community members.
Concerns and suggestions
Ross Dold (EOSphere) sought clarification on the purpose of the proposal and Yves explained the intention to support the RAM market and narrative.
Guillaume (EOS Titan) believes that the 0.5% discount is too low to offset the benefits of EOS liquidity. He expressed interest in getting a larger discount if RAM has a longer lock-up period, and emphasized that RAM is indeed needed for project development.
Aaron Cox (Greymass) acknowledged the potential benefits of purchasing RAM at a slightly discounted price for account creation, but emphasized the need for liquid EOS to pay for team members’ operational needs. He suggested that any RAM payment option should be voluntary and used selectively.
Denis (EOS Nation) seconded the idea of providing more substantial incentives for BPs to accept RAM payments, suggesting that staking mechanisms or deep discounts could make the option more attractive.
Explore voluntary participation and incentives
Yves and participants discussed making the program optional rather than mandatory to address concerns about the practicality and attractiveness of RAM payments. The conversation explored how a voluntary program could include incentives such as waiving the 0.5% purchase fee or a significant discount on RAM earned through BP rewards, possibly coupled with a lock-up period to prevent immediate sell-offs.
Potential for wider application
Guillaume said that incentives to purchase RAM at a discount could extend beyond BPs to the broader EOS community, which could benefit any project or user with a long-term need for RAM. This sparked discussion about how such programs could support network growth by encouraging resource allocation to development projects.
Summarize
Yves La Rose acknowledged the feedback from block producers on the RAM payment proposal, noting subtle concerns about the liquidity and operational impacts of receiving RAM as compensation. Feedback highlighted a preference for optional and significantly incentivized participation models, as well as the potential to expand these incentives to benefit the broader EOS ecosystem. More work is needed to carefully consider the feedback and investigate the feasibility of introducing potential staking mechanisms or incentive programs. The community should rethink and re-propose a balanced strategy that is consistent with both community aspirations and concerns, thereby enhancing the attractiveness of the RAM market and the overall vitality of the EOS ecosystem.
RAM Fee Redistribution: Community Proposal and Discussion
The discussion on redirecting RAM fees has led to a proposal to redirect these fees from contributing to REX to locking or outright burning RAM to reduce the total available supply. This community proposal aims to manage the infrastructure needs of block producers (BPs) by increasing the amount of allocated but unconsumed RAM, thereby alleviating the pressure from the growth of RAM usage.
Main points and suggestions:
Denis Carrier (EOS Nation) expressed support for reallocating RAM fees to purchase RAM and then remove it from circulation, emphasizing the benefits of reducing the overall RAM supply, reducing future maintenance burdens on BPs, and potentially making the RAM market more efficient.
Aaron Cox (Greymass) expressed concern about removing RAM fees from REX, emphasizing that these fees play an integral role in supporting the REX system, as well as supporting the EOS ecosystem. Aaron believes that the current interest in RAM, while beneficial, should not undermine the fundamental support mechanisms of EOS, and warns against any actions that could weaken the EOS economic model.
Huaqiang Wen (EOS Labs) proposed an alternative approach to stimulate the RAM market and manage its liquidity more efficiently: eliminating RAM purchase fees while increasing RAM sales fees by 1%. This strategy aims to encourage market participation by making it more attractive to buy RAM, while creating a more stable RAM holding pattern among participants by offering a higher exit fee as a potential source of income or discouraging immediate resale.
Summarize
Yves concluded the discussion by promising a deeper review of the feedback and ideas presented. He noted the mixed responses to the proposal and the need to find a balanced approach that meets the needs of the ecosystem.
Introducing exSat: EOS’s foray into BTC Layer 2 solutions
The discussion continued to the latest progress of the “exSat” project, which was previously known as the BTC L2 initiative. Yves La Rose introduced the new name and gave an update on the project, mentioning the draft whitepaper being prepared. Plans to publicly release the draft whitepaper soon were discussed, as well as the upcoming participation in the BTC L2 conference in Hong Kong. The event will serve as a platform to showcase the exSat project and initiate discussions with venture capital funds for potential fundraising.
Key highlights and strategies:
Tony Tsao elaborated on the efforts made since the last conference, emphasizing the importance of developing a compelling and unique whitepaper. He pointed out the crowded BTC L2 market, emphasizing that exSat must stand out with unique features such as trustless bridging and focus on zero-layer technology. Tony emphasized that the upcoming BTC L2 conference is an important opportunity to showcase exSat's unique proposition and attract the attention of well-known investors and organizations.
Summary:
The exSat project represents a major venture by the EOS community into the BTC L2 space, with the ambition to differentiate itself through innovative technology and strategic partnerships. The upcoming conference in Hong Kong will be a key moment for the project, providing an opportunity to gain visibility among investors and the wider blockchain ecosystem. The conference highlighted that the focus on a compelling white paper and project presentation are key steps to achieving the project's goals and securing its position in the competitive BTC L2 market.
Rethinking EOS Token Economics: A Comprehensive Community Conversation
Yves La Rose’s provocative tweet about capping EOS supply at 2 billion tokens sparked a discussion around a key tokenomics shift for EOS, revealing aspects of community sentiment and strategic foresight.
Different views on EOS token economic reform
Yves La Rose proposed the idea of capping the EOS token supply at 2 billion to spark discussion about modifying the EOS token economy, acknowledging that the ecosystem’s market performance has been stagnant and seeking to stimulate debate about potential economic reforms. His tweet suggested an aggressive issuance of tokens similar to Ethereum’s logarithmic curve, designed to gauge community interest and market reaction, which has proven to be positive, indicating a desire for major changes within EOS. Yves clarified that the proposal is still in the conceptual stage and is intended to collect feedback rather than present a final plan. He spoke about the different reactions, ranging from enthusiasm for stopping inflation to concerns about token dilution and the long-term economic impact on EOS. Throughout the discussion, Yves stressed the need for open dialogue to explore innovative solutions, contrasting this approach with the past practice of developing internally and then releasing publicly. Acknowledging the challenges of balancing transparency and effective communication, he expressed a willingness to explore different approaches to engage the community and collect different opinions on the future direction of EOS.
Ross Dold expressed concerns about the sweeping changes proposed to the EOS token economics, specifically regarding the idea of minting additional tokens to limit supply. While acknowledging the appeal of no inflation from a holder’s perspective, he was concerned about the potential market dilution that could result from an influx of tokens. Ross highlighted his lack of expertise in token economics, but recognized the need for action given EOS’s poor performance over the years. He called for more discussion with the community and other block producers, emphasizing his cautious stance on such a major change to the EOS economic model.
Tony Tsao stressed that EOS needs to stand out in the competitive BTC L2 market by crafting a unique and compelling narrative, emphasizing the importance of a well-thought-out and attractive white paper. He warned against rushing into major changes without thorough internal and public discussions, and stressed the importance of strategic deliberation and consensus. Tony advocated for hiring token economics experts to design an effective economic model for EOS, noting the need for professional, prudent planning and collective action to ensure that any changes will bring positive transformation to EOS.
Guillaume expressed support for revisiting EOS’s token economics, saying that the existing system is outdated and could benefit from a comprehensive overhaul. He suggested the creation of a governance mechanism specifically responsible for evaluating and adjusting EOS’s token economics, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to incentivizing real on-chain economic activity. Guillaume highlighted the current lack of attention to these key aspects of the ecosystem and suggested that EOS could explore performance-based incentives to encourage experts to develop new token economic models. He stressed the importance of developing a consistent strategy that aligns with EOS’s goals to promote sustainable growth and real user engagement, rather than short-term speculative gains.
Aaron Cox expressed support for the idea of radical changes to the EOS token economy, but stressed the importance of developing a detailed and actionable plan before making any decisions. He suggested discussions around key areas for determining token distribution when inflation stops to ensure broad community and block producer input. Aaron appreciated the concept of open brainstorming but advocated for a more structured approach to framing the discussion, potentially identifying specific goals for the use of newly minted tokens. He acknowledged the need for major changes within EOS, but stressed the need for a structured and thoughtful exploration of available options.
Peter Watt stressed that EOS urgently needs to take a carefully considered approach to any proposed changes in its token model, and stressed the importance of aligning such changes with the platform's broader goals and the need to attract new users. He stressed the importance of maintaining a coherent narrative, especially in light of initiatives such as the BTC L2 project. Given EOS's historical price performance challenges, Peter stressed the importance of thoughtful consideration and broad community engagement before implementing any token economic adjustments. He noted that his initial reaction to Yves' tweet indicated that he had already made a decision, reflecting the formality of the presentation and the potential for misunderstandings within the community.
Dafeng Guo advocated for clear communication to ensure the EOS community understands that token economics discussions are ongoing and open feeds. He agreed with the approach of engaging the public in these conversations, but he was concerned that the specificity of the initial tweets could give the impression that the decision was final. Dafeng stressed the importance of targeting new users as part of any token economic reforms, and suggested that efforts should focus not only on reactivating past users but also on expanding the EOS user base. He proposed that a large part of any inflation redirection should be aimed at attracting individuals who are not familiar with EOS, perhaps in line with the narrative around projects such as BTC L2 to attract new interest in the platform.
Key Takeaways and Action Points:
Communication strategy: Emphasizes some points on clear communication to manage community expectations and ensure broad understanding that the proposal is open for comment but has not yet been decided.
Holistic approach: Speakers advocated for a comprehensive review of EOS’s token economics, rather than just an immediate fix, with the goal of developing a strategy that supports long-term sustainability and growth.
Public participation: Despite differing opinions on the approach, there was agreement on the value of involving the community in these discussions. Yves’s approach to sparking debate was seen as a double-edged sword, although it was considered a novel way to gather immediate feedback.
Summarize
The EOS community is at a crossroads, contemplating major token economic changes to revitalize the ecosystem. While Yves La Rose’s tweet kicks off this important conversation, the path forward requires careful deliberation, expert engagement, and a commitment to transparency and community involvement. The collective wisdom of the community, combined with targeted expertise, will be critical to building a token economic model that ensures the vitality and resilience of EOS.
Block Producer Attendance List
Big.ONE
Blockpool
Defibox
Detroit Ledger Technology
EOSeoul
EOS Asia
EOSflytoMARS
EOSInfStones
EOSLambdacom
EOS Nation
EOS Pizza
EOSphere
EOSSupport
EOS Titan
EOSUSA
GenerateEOS
Greymass
Hashfin
Moreisfuture
Newdex
SlowMist
StartEOS
About EOS Network
The EOS network is a paradigm of the blockchain 3.0 era, powered by EOS VM. EOS VM is a low-latency, high-performance and scalable WebAssembly engine that enables near-invisible deterministic transaction execution. The EOS network is designed for Web3 and is committed to achieving the best Web3 user and developer experience. EOS is the flagship blockchain and financial center of the Antelope protocol, and through the EOS Network Foundation (ENF) as a tool for multi-chain collaboration and the development of public infrastructure products, it further improves the infrastructure and drives the rapid development of EOS.
EOS EVM
EOS EVM is a simulation of Ethereum EVM and resides in EOS smart contracts. EOS EVM will provide the same functionality as other EVMs in the field, but with unparalleled speed, performance, and compatibility advantages. EOS EVM connects the EOS ecosystem with the Ethereum ecosystem, allowing developers to deploy a large number of Solidity-based digital assets and innovative dApps on EOS. Developers can use EOS EVM to take advantage of Ethereum's battle-tested open source code, tools, libraries, and SDKs while taking advantage of EOS's superior performance.
About the EOS Network Foundation
The EOS Network Foundation (ENF) was created to create a prosperous, decentralized future for the EOS ecosystem. ENF is ushering in a new round of Web3 change by encouraging active participation from key stakeholders in the EOS ecosystem, supporting community projects, providing ecosystem funding, and supporting the construction of an open technology ecosystem. As the center of the EOS network and a leading open source platform, ENF was founded in 2021 and has a stable set of frameworks, tools, and blockchain deployment libraries. Together, we have achieved innovation in community building and are committed to creating a stronger future for all.
