If most people hodl on Binance, then Binance has the majority stake in many PoS coins 😱

in cryptocurrency •  7 years ago 

Binance could end up dominating many PoS networks which give out governance rights to tokenholders, since most cryptocurrency investors tend to keep their funds on centralized exchanges of which Binance is the biggest.

POS GOVERNANCE

Many Proof-of-Stake (PoS) cryptocurrencies give tokenholders some kind of voting right on their respective blockchains. Usually these voting rights have to do with who runs the main nodes, or regarding which software/blockchain upgrades are voted in.

The theory is sound: an attacker to the network would need to invest a significant amount of money in order to gain a large enough stake in the network to dominate it. I realized today, however, that centralized exchanges are left out of this equation.

BINANCE

Not only do the majority of cryptocurrency investors and traders keep their funds on the exchange they are trading on, but most people also aggregate to the biggest exchanges because of their volume. Right now, for example, most people are trading and hodling on Binance and it is commonly known that the biggest wallets in any cryptocurrency rich-list usually belongs to a handful of the same exchanges with Binance often topping the charts as well.

If the token in PoS gives out voting and governance rights, this would mean that as long as people keep their crypto on centralized exchanges they are actually giving these exchanges such as Binance an extremely large stake and power in the network. If they opt to (mis?)use these governance rights they could exert significant influence over many of the cryptocurrencies and quite possibly even attack it.

In some cases this would require actively staking the coin, which could be problematic for exchanges who need the crypto to be more liquid because of deposits and withdrawals. In other cases such as NEO which operates on a more passive way, or even EOS (even though it's not a staking coin, it does gain voting rights), Binance or other exchanges could end up controlling the majority of voting power. For as long as most people give their governance tokens to these exchanges for safekeeping, this problem would continue to exist and we will just have to trust that they do not abuse this power.

I don't see a direct solution to this problem. I know EOS has implemented a rule that no account can own more than X% of the voting rights, but this seems relatively easy to circumvent with multiple accounts. In other blockchains I don't know if there are ways designed to work around this power centralization without introducing new, other centralized barriers (like 'banning' certain accounts from participating).

I'm curious if any of you are aware of this problem, and/or know of any PoS governance tokens with integrated features that protect against this kind of centralization? Please do share!

footercartoon new5.png

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I know people here don't generally like government regulation, but if the exchanges were regulated properly they would have to hold their customers' coins in segregated accounts and would not be allowed to vote or stake them.

Maybe there's a market-focused way of accomplishing this, I don't know.

Yes, I suppose government regulation would help in this regard.. But it doesn't get more centralized than that of course :)
Ideally this problem would go away when DEXes take over but it could be years until that happens.

This is where decentralized exchanges will eventually come in to play. I primarily use the Bitshares exchange, but apparently Bisq works as well (in a different way). Having a honeypot exchange creates the same issue that Bitcoin was developed to solve.

Hi! Great points and info :) I'm eagerly learning about the security measures after these 51% attacks and thinking to change (when in the green) only to dpos coins because i want to cut the risks of loosing more investments haha. to be fair though , im still looking for info if tokens can be 51% attacked (without large group's collaborating)

So pos are obviously much safer than pow.. but no that secure ?

PoS is still very much unproven and it is only safer in theory. There may actually be loopholes and problems like the one I describe in my post above, and worse yet there may be issues that we haven't thought of yet. It's going to take a few years until PoS has proved itself enough in order to have people trust it enough with billion dollar transactions I think.

PoW on the other hand has a 9 year track record in Bitcoin as being trustworthy and reliable and though people speculate it is possible to attack the network, nobody has ever managed to do so. And with the hashrate continueing to increase exponentially I don't see how anybody will have enough processing power to even attempt to do so, even disregarding the insanely high cost of doing so. With that much hashrate, it may very well be more profitable to mine rather than attack..

PoW gets a bad rap but it truly is a lot more nuanced than most think. The game theory is truly very strong.

I see that bitcoin would be extremely expenive to have 51% hash control and that makes it safe,but all the other pow seem a waste of investments,like verge for example

Oh definitely! Some of the smaller PoW coins don't have enough hashing power at all... I don't like non-Bitcoin PoW coins much at all, with the exception of Monero which uses PoW in a legitimate way too.

:) PoWs are histrory already lol.. there had to be some kind of selection process to ween out all the ones that won't have a sucsessful future lol.. im waiting until green again and ill be getting rid of all the PoWs hahahhaha fuck it I might even go all in on Steem, and keep just .1 BTC for my pension in 20 years lol. Ill swap my other pow's for ARK, LISK and DECRED because personally I have such shit luck with anything technological, and I almost guarentee that the coins I would keep would be 51% attacked in the future and go to shit hahahahahhaha!
Early Days!

Damn, that's something I never thought about before!