——From “Blockchain 3.0” to the Collapse of Technology and Trust in the “Pyramid Coin King”
I. Technical Defects and Security Vulnerabilities: From “Epic-level Vulnerabilities” to Trust Crisis
EOS once regarded itself as “Blockchain 3.0,” claiming to solve Ethereum's performance bottleneck, but its technical hidden dangers have been frequently questioned:
Frequent security vulnerabilities: In 2018, the 360 security team revealed that EOS had an “epic-level vulnerability” that allowed remote control of nodes, enabling attackers to steal super node keys, tamper with transactions, and even lead to the collapse of the public chain. Although EOS founder BM claimed the vulnerability had been fixed, market confidence had already been severely impacted, with the coin price plummeting nearly 10% in one day.
Poor performance after mainnet launch: After the mainnet launch in 2018, EOS faced continuous price declines due to complex operation processes, inefficient transaction processing speeds, and a lack of ecology, being humorously labeled as “stablecoin.”
Controversies over the development team: BM was repeatedly accused of “technical pie-in-the-sky,” and his frequent project changes (from BitShares to Steemit to EOS) intensified community doubts, with users calling him the “blockchain job-hopping master.”
II. Pyramid Schemes and Fund Pools: From “Super Nodes” to “Ecological Scams”
The operating model of EOS has been widely questioned as a “pyramid scheme design”:
Controversy over super node mechanism: 21 super nodes need to pledge over 100 million funds to participate in elections, criticized as a “rich man's game,” with ordinary users reduced to “victims of fleece.”
EOS ecological platform explosion: Established in 2018, the “EOS ecological platform” attracted 450,000 members with high commission returns, involving over 500 million yuan, ultimately classified by the court as a pyramid scheme, with 9 core members sentenced to 2-5 years. Its model relied on “referring people” for dynamic income, without real profit support.
DeFi projects running away in succession: DeFi projects on the EOS chain, such as EMD Emerald and Coral (WRAM), frequently experienced explosions, with EMD running away with tens of millions, and Coral tokens plummeting by 90%, posing a very high risk of zeroing user assets.
III. Fundraising Controversies and Black Box Fund Management
EOS's fundraising behavior is a textbook case of fleece in the coin circle:
Sky-high ICO fundraising: From 2017 to 2018, a continuous ICO raised 7 million ETH (approximately $4.2 billion), far exceeding actual development needs, and was criticized as “PPT financing.” It was reported that the project team converted the raised funds into Bitcoin for cashing out, raising suspicions of “running away with the money.”
Lack of financial transparency: The EOS team repeatedly transferred crowdfunding funds and refused to disclose their flow, leading the community to suspect fund misappropriation for secondary market manipulation.
Token value hollowing out: EOS coin has been criticized as a “utility token,” with the value of public chain applications (like MYKEY, Whale Exchange) severely decoupled from token prices, preventing holders from sharing ecological benefits.
IV. Market Performance and Collapse of Community Trust
Long-term price slump: After 2020, EOS prices remained stagnant, being listed among the “five piles of crap in the coin circle” (BCH, EOS, ETC, BSV, LTC), with investors calling it the “dog coin.”
Community alienation: Early supporter Li Xiaolai openly severed ties with “de-Li Xiaolai-ization,” bluntly stating “various interest entanglements”; retail investors turned to Bitcoin due to frequent fleece, resulting in a continuous loss of EOS holders.
Regulatory risks escalate: Chinese judicial authorities have repeatedly classified EOS-related projects as pyramid schemes or illegal fundraising. After the 360 and Zhou Hongyi joint exposure of loopholes in 2025, EOS was labeled as a “high-risk asset.”
V. Industry Insights: The Deep Logic of EOS's Predicament
Bubble of technological idealism: Overemphasis on TPS (transactions per second) while neglecting security and decentralization, leading to “high performance” becoming a marketing gimmick.
Failure of governance mechanism: Centralization of super nodes and lack of community governance turned EOS into a tool for a few interest groups.
Lack of regulation and ethics: The project team exploited legal gray areas, using “technological neutrality” as a pretext to fleece investors, ultimately undermining industry credibility.
Conclusion
The rise and fall of EOS is a microcosm of the brutal growth of the coin circle: from a technical utopia to a breeding ground for pyramid schemes, from a capital darling to a community outcast, its lessons warn practitioners—the core value of blockchain lies in creating real demand, not weaving illusions of wealth. For investors, the EOS case once again confirms the iron law of the coin circle: behind “code is law,” there may be “lies are the scythe.”
Welcome to follow Web3 Coin World, where stories about the coin circle or coins will be updated daily. Your attention is the source of my creativity.#eos
Binance registration download link:https://www.binance.com/zh-CN/join?ref=R0L9EBCX