About the recent arbitration, here are some Pros and Cons from Chinese communities.
_About the recent arbitration case in which 27 accounts are frozen, there are different voices among Chinese communities, especially among those who are preparing to actively join the global governance. We hope different opinions and questions in Chinese communities can be heard, and we would like to hear your opinions very much. We will be grateful to hear your thoughts of the following ideas.
PS: Personally I think the decision to freeze the accounts is quite understandable, but that is just my personal perspective and might be flawed. That is why I have gathered both the Cons and Pros on this issue. I have tried my best not to distort the original meaning when translating them into English._
The evidence that can prove these accounts are compromised is not revealed to the public by the ECAF. This has given rise to serious concerns in Chinese communities.
If the evidence is listed for anyone to check, the arbitration would be totally OK. But for now since we cannot see the evidence, it is quite understandable to have concerns. Could the ECAF provide the reason why evidence is not provided immediately? Is there a possibility that this is for protecting the privacy of victims?
What the public need is cryptographic evidence, such as transaction with corresponding eth signature. It would be outrageous that you freeze an account without at least crytopraphic evidence. As for the possible compromise of victims’ privacy, it is a necessary cost. There must be open evidence.
ECAF is supposed to give public the evidence on this case. If the victims don’t want the information be spread, ECAF should at least give an announcement on this.
What is the logic behind this decision? How can I prove that my account has been compromised if I can prove I possess the private key of the account? Also, am I allowed to buy a private key offline? If yes, then there is a chance that my account could be frozen by the seller. The fundamental question is how to confirm the owner? ECAF seems to be vague on this question.
This is what emergency is for. ECAF has already given a preliminary explanation. When things are done, we can decide later on whether the arbitration is appropriate or not and then carry out further reward or punishment. This is a proper procedure. In my opinion, the problem is that some BPs don’t trust the existing ECAF. But since you are using EOS account, that means you have already agreed to the constitution, which says that arbitrators have the right to do what has been done.
If we go where the majority go at the cost of sacrificing the interest of the minority, wouldn’t this lead to a violence of the many? On the other hand, if we keep considering the opinions of the few, when on earth can anything be done?