In a speculative thread led by the CEO of Bitcoin magazine, David Bailey on July 23 lit a fresh dispute between Bitcoin supporters and Ethereum supporters about how the Proof -Fo -For -For -Sake (POS) security model can affect time-honored capital markets. The stock exchange developed on the background of the Ethereum Ethereum publicly listed by Ethereum, constantly accumulating and ethering – the emerging trend.
Wall Street 51% Attack on Ethereum?
Bailey scenario It will merge on this concentration: if the corporate balance cluster has a material share in the disruption of ETH, in his opinion, the capital market tactics can replace direct purchases of tokens in the assembly of validators. Bailey opened: “If sufficient ETH validators were the property of Ethereum’s public tax companies (~ 20% of the total supply of ETH), you can 51% of public actions (i.e. most of the control of the majority, many ways to achieve this through capital markets) – and you would have control over management over Ethereum. In other words, the Papiel Papieli Papieli constituting the release of ETH. “
Expanding the idea, he claimed that the strategy “opens a quite interesting investment strategy”, adding: “Because Ethereum is not security, Ethereum owners have no rights … you can change the chain, cut other users, screw up all assets and L2S issued on the upper part of ETH … Legally pigging.”
The core of the Bailey hypothesis is based on two related assumptions: first, publicly listed by the tax ethereum, the company accumulates a sufficiently immense percentage of ether; Secondly, that hostilely attitudes can obtain control of the management or management of these corporations – hostile acquisitions, activist campaigns or other capital markets tactics – without direct purchase of ETH.
Answering the counterargument that the attacker would have to buy huge amounts of ether, and thus enrich existing owners, Bailey wrote: “You don’t have to buy any ETH, you just buy shares in companies that already have it.”
Critics quickly questioned both technical premises and true enforceability. The nickname commentator Birdnals formulated the script as a simultaneous, secret collusion among several supervisory boards “5+ listed companies” and “100 other employees/agents who need to perform this collusion … of which many are Eth Maxis.”
They warned that such behavior could be invited by “fraud, anti -drust violations, rico” and other obligations, which makes a legal and operational proposal to brittle. Bailey replied that “a hostile takeover is the whole world in capital markets” and questioned how the “social cut” “without fucking the remaining 49% of shareholders who are innocent” was used.
Technical members of the Ethereum community rejected the framing that the ownership of the validate is equal to the management body. The former federal agent Tigran Gambaryan replied: “Perhaps block production and MEV, but not management. This is not what ETH works. Eth management is out of the chain.” Ethereum Nicholasb. In this way he said: “Although there are many POS blocks that use management in the chain, Ethereum does not. It is important to distinguish it. Not only anyone is the owner of the most ET (or a coordinated group of owners), can control the network,” calling Bailey’s “Bailey’s” claim “actually incorrect”.
During the press, ETH traded on $
A distinguished painting created from Dall.e, chart from tradingview.com
Editorial process For a bitcoinist, she focuses on providing thoroughly examined, correct and impartial content. We maintain strict acquisition standards, and each page undergoes a careful review of our team of the best technological experts and experienced editors. This process ensures the integrity, importance and value of our content for our readers.
