7 Accounts blocked by EOS BP without Going an Arbitration

EOS is facing another issue just days after its mainnet activation, as the newly elected block producers have frozen 7 EOS accounts on suspicion of being stolen
19 June 2018   812

The backlash began as the block producers did go over arbitration, an integral part of the EOS’s governance system. The critics are certainly questioning the credibility of the project. Jackson Palmer, the creator of Dogecoin and a well-known person in the blockchain industry, questioned the very governance process constructed by EOS and the role of EOS Core Arbitration Forum (ECAF).

The structure of EOS’s governance has been parted into 3 distinct groups - block producers, arbiters, and token holders. This separation resembles the executive, constituency, and judicial, of any governed system respectively. 

On 17 June 2018, the top 21 Block Producers unanimously agreed to protect property that may have been compromised through phishing attacks or other scams where member’s private keys were compromised. The EOS911 initiative was created by EOS42 as a way to prevent victims of private key theft from having their tokens lost once the 72-hour unstacking period ended following the EOS Mainnet Launch. Once that period ended, the thieves would be free to transfer the tokens wherever they’d like, rendering futile any recourse available to the community at this time.
EOS New York, in their recent post

So, in this case, the block producers did not go with the arbitration, rather they only conferred with them. Then the post added:

Foreseeing the process that would be required to act, EOS New York, on a call with BPs and BPCs, requested an expedited review of the merits of the case from ECAF (EOS Core Arbitration Forum) who was also on the call. The idea was that if ECAF found merit in the evidence provided, a formal ruling from ECAF would ask the BPs to “freeze” the accounts in question until such time that a thorough and formal review of the claims could be completed.
EOS New York, in their recent post

This is not the first problem EOS is facing amid its mainnet activation, as within 48 hours of that, the network suspended because of some bug. Though the error only led to a 5-hour network blackout, that is surely not something the team would have expected.

Pure Bit to Refund Investors' Money

Another cryptocurrency scam storu may have happy ending
15 November 2018   70

The founders of the South Korean exchange Pure Bit, who were suspected of stealing investors' money, announced the return of funds.

According to the local edition of BlockchainROK, representatives of the exchange have already partially returned the money to some users and pledged to return all other funds.

On November 4, the exchange team launched the ICO with the goal of collecting about $ 30 million to create a crypto exchange. However, on November 9, Pure Bit closed the site, said goodbye to its investors and removed everyone from the group in the KakaoTalk messenger. Also, the founders of the exchange withdrew funds from the account that was used for ICO.

According to CCN, one of the issues traced the Ethereum address of the exchange and asked Upbit to block the account and freeze the funds. Upbit fulfilled this request.

This is Pure Bit. First off, I would like to apologize to everyone that was affected by the ICO. Since November 5, I raked in 16,000 ETH and did not open a crypto exchange as promised. I kicked out everyone in our social media chat groups and disappeared without any message. I negatively affected investors in the project psychologically and financially. I made an unforgivable mistake that cannot be turned around, blinded by money. It has been less than a day and I have already started to suffer from guilt. Although it cannot be compared with the hardship faced by the investors, I also felt significant guilt. I sincerely apologize to all of the investors in the ICO who were affected by the operation.
 

CEO of Pure Bit

The founder of Pure Bit also notified that he would return ETH 16,000 to depositors without taking into account the payment of services to a third-party company that organized ICO.