The EOS Block Producer (BP) monthly meetings serve as a foundational platform for facilitating consistent and open communication between the top 30 EOS BPs and the EOS Network Foundation (ENF). These gatherings are designed to cultivate a collaborative environment where network operators and custodians can engage in constructive dialogue, share insights, and work collectively towards the shared goal of advancing and strengthening the EOS ecosystem. Through these discussions, the community aims to address challenges, explore new opportunities, and implement strategies that align with the network’s long-term vision for innovation and growth.

Meeting Overview

The meeting commenced at 0200 UTC on February 28th, 2024, with 22 Block Producers (BPs) and a total of 35 attendees participating. To accommodate the diverse, global audience, the Interprefy tool was employed for real-time translation across multiple languages, facilitating effective communication throughout the session.

Beatrice Wang, Communications Manager for the EOS Network Foundation (ENF), welcomed participants and introduced the agenda. The meeting was set to cover a comprehensive range of topics, including:

  1. Recover+ PayCash Recovery Update: This segment was devoted to sharing insights into the successful collaborative effort led by Francis Sangkuan and the BPs, highlighting the operation’s strategic execution and its outcomes.
  2. Leap 6.0 Progress: Yves provided an update on the Leap 6.0 upgrade, detailing the timeline for code completion, testing protocols, and the crucial role of BPs in ensuring a smooth deployment, slated for July 31st.
  3. Transitioning LEAP 6.0 to a Business Source License (BSL): A proposal suggesting a shift from the current MIT license to a BSL was brought to the table, aiming to ensure commercial users contribute to development costs while keeping the codebase accessible.
  4. Exploring the RAM Pay Proposal for Block Producers: The discussion explored the possibility of compensating BPs with RAM instead of EOS, considering the growing interest in RAM within the ecosystem and its potential implications.
  5. RAM Fee Reallocation: This topic centered on a proposal to redirect RAM fees from contributing to REX towards purchasing and locking up RAM, aiming to manage the infrastructure demands on BPs as RAM usage grows.
  6. Introduction to the exSat Project: The session ventured into the EOS’s engagement with the BTC L2 space, with the “exSat” project at its forefront, outlining its unique propositions and strategic plans for attracting venture capital interest.
  7. Rethinking EOS Tokenomics: Prompted by a tweet from Yves, this discussion invited thoughts on a radical shift in EOS’s tokenomics, including capping the EOS supply and altering the token distribution model to invigorate the ecosystem.

Following the introduction, Yves La Rose, Founder and CEO of the ENF, took the helm to delve into these topics. His presentations aimed to address current initiatives, solicit feedback from BPs, and outline the strategic direction for the EOS Network. The discussions were geared towards collaborative development and enhancing the EOS ecosystem’s overall functionality and market position.

Recover+ PayCash Recovery Update

Yves La Rose extended a heartfelt thank you to Francis Sangkuan, project lead of Recover+, the BPs, and everyone involved in the successful recovery operation. An overview of the operation was given and next steps were also discussed.

  • Operation Overview: Spanning roughly nine months, the Recover+ PayCash operation exemplified precision and collaboration within the EOS ecosystem. The meticulous planning culminated in an MSIG that successfully secured approximately 2 million EOS. 
  • Stealth and Efficiency: The operation was conducted discreetly to avoid alerting the hacker, resulting in a smooth execution. The funds are currently frozen, with PayCash and Recover+ analyzing the data to prepare for the final recovery proposal set for March 5th.
  • Recovery Process: Upon receiving the necessary 15/21 BP signatures, a +7-day delay setting on token movements is activated. After this period the funds are scheduled to be returned to PayCash.
  • Recovery Fee: PayCash has committed to a 5% recovery fee to support the ongoing operations and maintenance of Recover+. This amounts to roughly $100,000.
  • Unique EOS Feature: Yves La Rose highlighted that the recovery operation showcases a unique feature of EOS, also not found in other EVMs

For More Information see the full article detailing the Recover+ operation:

Leap 6.0 Progress

Addressing the Leap 6.0 upgrade timeline. Yves confirmed that the code for Leap 6.0 is on track to be completed, merged, and ready for deployment on the testnet in early April. The deployment of Leap 6.0, featuring instant finality and the new Savanna consensus algorithm, is planned for July 31st, earlier than the originally planned fall release. The ENF is working to expedite this process to ensure readiness by the end of July.

La Rose emphasized the need for BP cooperation, particularly for testing and deployment on the Jungle testnet, and mentioned collaboration with the CryptoLions team. To accommodate testing while maintaining stability for current Jungle 4 users, two new versions of Jungle will be launched. One version, referred to as Jungle 5.0, will test the updates, and a second, more private version will allow for rapid iteration of the code.

He outlined an aggressive timeline to meet the July 31st deadline, with the code expected to be deployed and ready for activation well before this date. Coordination with BPs will be crucial, especially regarding new components in Leap 6.0 like the block finalizer and key management. The ENF has begun coordinating with exchanges and all EOS node operators, with increased outreach planned in the upcoming months to prepare for the hard fork and ensure a smooth upgrade process.

For more information see the full article detailing the upgrade to Leap 6:

Proposal for Transitioning LEAP 6.0 to a Business Source License 

Yves next voiced a proposal that had been circulating among some EOS community members for a significant change in licensing for the LEAP 6.0 software.


Instead of continuing with the MIT license, which allows unrestricted use, the proposal was made to shift to a Business Source License (BSL) similar to Uniswap’s. This license would still keep the code open source but would require commercial users to obtain permission from the EOS Network Foundation (ENF). The primary rationale for this shift was to ensure that those benefiting commercially from the software contribute to its development costs.

Despite previous efforts through the Antelope Coalition which met with limited success to encourage collaborative development and cost-sharing among different chains, for core code development such as Leap, EOS has borne 100% of development costs. For features like Instant Finality, other chains have not reciprocated in core development contributions or financial support, even when minimal contributions were requested.

The proposal’s intention was to protect the investment of EOS token holders and ensure that commercial entities using EOS technology contribute back to its ecosystem. However, La Rose acknowledged potential downsides, including strained relationships with other chains and impacts on BPs operating across different blockchains.

Summary of Responses and Alternative Proposals

In the discussion about the proposal to implement a Business Source License (BSL) for LEAP 6.0, key participants articulated both objections to the licensing approach and alternative solutions.

Aaron Cox (Greymass)

  • Objection to BSL Approach: Aaron Cox highlighted the practical and financial implications of maintaining different software variants under a BSL model. His primary concern was that the effort and cost of adapting to exclusive versions for non-paying chains could outweigh any potential revenue from licensing fees. He pointed out the logistical challenges for developers and operators in maintaining compatibility and the increased burden on organizations like Greymass to support these variants.
  • Alternative Suggestion: While Cox did not propose a specific alternative to the BSL model during the discussion, his comments emphasized the need for a solution that would not impose additional costs on developers and that maintains the integrity of a unified codebase. His perspective suggests a preference for approaches that encourage collaboration and shared contributions without fracturing the ecosystem.

Guillaume Babin-Trembley “Gnome” (EOS Titan)

  • Objection to BSL Approach: Guillaume opposed the licensing approach, arguing that it could be seen as a unilateral and potentially disrespectful decision, given the existing contracts among Antelope coalition chains.
  • Alternative Suggestion: Guillaume suggested revisiting a concept discussed previously within the coalition, which did not gain traction at the time. He proposed the idea of a SUPRA token or a similar concept, which could serve as a unifying element for the coalition. This approach would involve creating an official inter-blockchain communication (IBC) network supported by official contracts between chains. Membership in this network could require a fee, and the SUPRA token could represent a weighted basket of tokens from member chains. Guillaume’s proposal aims to foster cooperation and mutual benefit, emphasizing the need for creative solutions to ensure all parties involved have a vested interest in the success and support of the shared codebase. He argued for dialogue and negotiation with coalition members to explore such innovative revenue models, highlighting the changed financial circumstances of chains like WAX and Telos, which might now be more amenable to contributing.

Tony Tsao

  • Objection to BSL Approach: Tony raised concerns that a unilateral decision to impose a licensing fee could divide the community and hinder the further development of EOS. He argued that such an approach does not align with the spirit of blockchain and could lead to conflicts.
  • Alternative Suggestion: Tony offered a distinct approach by suggesting the Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IFaaS) model. This model would not directly charge for the source code but instead provide infrastructure services (such as Instant Finality) that chains could use by pledging resources like RAM or EOS. The idea is akin to requiring users to stake resources in order to access and utilize certain services. Tony further elaborated on a mechanism where the coalition chain could issue its own token rewards to those who stake EOS/RAM, thus encouraging the staking and utilization of EOS resources while providing income opportunities for users. This model draws inspiration from Polkadot’s slot bidding mechanism, suggesting that instead of a simple licensing fee, there could be more blockchain-oriented ways of encouraging contribution and participation. Tony emphasized the need for a model that benefits all parties, suggesting that any approach should ensure developers are compensated while fostering a cooperative and non-divisive atmosphere within the broader EOS ecosystem.


In the dialogue regarding the proposal to transition LEAP 6.0 to a Business Source License (BSL), there was a general agreement on the importance of contributions from chains that benefit from the Antelope codebase, primarily maintained by EOS Engineers and significantly supported by the ENF. The discussion reflected an awareness within the EOS community about the value of cooperative development and fair contributions for the long-term health and advancement of the ecosystem.

However, the conversation also acknowledged the need for further dialogue and exploration, as there wasn’t unanimous consensus on the approach. The sense of urgency for beneficiary chains to increase their involvement and support was evident, yet it was also clear that decisions are yet to be made. This understanding served as a call for more active engagement from all parties involved, highlighting that ongoing discussions are essential in reaching a resolution that benefits the entire EOS ecosystem.

Should any other Antelope based chains have questions or concerns about what gaining access to the BSL for their product or chain would entail, they are encouraged to reach out via email at [email protected].

Exploring the RAM Pay Proposal for Block Producers

Yves La Rose next gave voice to another proposal that had recently garnered attention within the community due to the growing interest and narrative around RAM within the EOS Ecosystem. He noted the significant stake in RAM, with about 14 million EOS, and highlighted the recent market activity following a decision to stop the release of RAM.

The core of the proposal is to change the payment method for block producers (BPs) from EOS to RAM. This adjustment aims to leverage the heightened interest in RAM, allowing BPs to either use the RAM for their applications, engage in speculation, or sell it back to the system for EOS, albeit with a .5% selling fee. Yves pointed out that most BPs currently accumulate their EOS payments over roughly a month before converting to fiat, suggesting a similar pattern could develop with RAM, potentially introducing buy pressure on RAM during accumulation periods.

Yves also mentioned possible adjustments to the proposal to mitigate downsides, such as the administrative burden and the selling fee. Alternatives could include giving BPs the choice to be paid in RAM or EOS, removing the buy fee for acquiring RAM through this system, and only applying the .5% fee upon selling RAM. He expressed interest in exploring what these changes would entail in terms of code modifications and deployment, seeking feedback on whether BPs would be interested in being paid in RAM as opposed to EOS.

The discussion on Yves La Rose’s RAM Pay Proposal generated a variety of perspectives among Block Producers (BPs) and community members.

Concerns and Suggestions

  • Ross Dold (EOSphere) sought clarification on the proposal’s purpose, leading Yves to explain the intention to bolster the RAM market and narrative.
  • Guillaume (EOS Titan) considered the .5% discount too low to outweigh the benefits of EOS liquidity. He expressed interest in a more substantial discount for RAM if it came with a long lock-up period, emphasizing a genuine need for RAM for project development.
  • Aaron Cox (Greymass) acknowledged the potential benefit of acquiring RAM at a slight discount for account creation but highlighted operational needs for liquid EOS to pay team members. He suggested that any RAM payment option should be voluntary and selectively used.
  • Denis (EOS Nation) aligned with the idea of offering more substantial incentives for BPs to accept RAM payments, suggesting that a staking mechanism or a significant discount could make the option more appealing.

Exploring Voluntary Participation and Incentives

Yves and the participants discussed making the program optional rather than mandatory, to address concerns about the practicality and appeal of being paid in RAM. The conversation explored how a voluntary program could include incentives like exemption from the .5% buy fee or a significant discount on RAM acquired through BP rewards, potentially coupled with a lock-up period to prevent immediate sell-off.

Potential for a Broader Application

Guillaume suggested that the incentive to acquire RAM at a discount could extend beyond BPs to the broader EOS community, potentially benefiting any project or user with a long-term need for RAM. This led to discussions on how such a program could support the network’s growth by encouraging resource allocation for development projects.


Yves La Rose recognized the feedback from Block Producers on the RAM Pay Proposal, noting the nuanced concerns about liquidity and operational effects of receiving RAM as compensation. The feedback highlighted a preference for an optional and significantly incentivized participation model, alongside the potential for extending these incentives to benefit the broader EOS ecosystem. More work is required to carefully consider the feedback and investigate the feasibility of introducing potential staking mechanisms or incentive programs. The community should rethink and re-propose a well-balanced strategy that aligns with both the aspirations and concerns of the community, thereby enhancing the RAM market’s appeal and the overall vitality of the EOS ecosystem.

RAM Fee Reallocation: Community Proposals and Discussions

The discussion regarding the redirection of RAM fees presented a proposal to shift these fees from contributing to REX towards either locking up or outright burning RAM to decrease the total available supply. This community proposal aimed to manage the infrastructure demands on Block Producers (BPs) by increasing allocated but unconsumed RAM, thereby alleviating pressures as RAM usage grows.

Key Perspectives and Suggestions:

  • Denis Carrier (EOS Nation) voiced support for reallocating RAM fees to purchase and subsequently remove RAM from circulation, emphasizing the benefits of reducing the overall RAM supply to lessen future maintenance burdens on BPs and potentially enhance the RAM market’s efficiency.
  • Aaron Cox (Greymass) expressed concerns about removing RAM fees from REX, highlighting the integral role these fees play in bolstering the REX system and, by extension, supporting the EOS ecosystem. Aaron argued that the current interest in RAM, while beneficial, should not detract from the foundational support mechanisms for EOS, cautioning against any actions that might weaken EOS’s economic model.
  • Huaqiang Wen (EOS Labs) proposed an alternative approach to stimulate the RAM market and manage its liquidity more effectively: eliminating the fee for buying RAM while setting a higher fee of 1% for selling RAM. This strategy aims to encourage market participation by making it more attractive to acquire RAM, with the higher exit fee serving as a potential revenue source or deterrent from immediate resale, thereby fostering a more stable RAM holding pattern among participants.


Yves concluded the discussion by committing to a deeper examination of the feedback and ideas presented. He noted the mixed reactions to the proposal and the necessity of finding a balanced approach that addresses the ecosystem’s needs.

Introducing exSat: EOS’s Venture into BTC Layer 2 Solutions

The discussion moved on to the latest developments regarding the “exSat” project, previously referred to as the BTC L2 initiative. Yves La Rose introduced the new name and provided an update on the project’s progress, mentioning a draft white paper that is in the works.. Plans to publicly release the draft white paper soon were discussed, alongside upcoming participation in a BTC L2 conference in Hong Kong. This event will serve as a platform for presenting the exSat project and initiating discussions with venture capital funds for potential fundraising.

Key Highlights and Strategies:

  • Tony Tsao elaborated on the efforts since the last meeting, emphasizing the importance of crafting a compelling and distinctive white paper. He pointed out the crowded BTC L2 market, underscoring the necessity for exSat to stand out with unique features such as a trustless bridge and a focus on layer zero technologies. Tony highlighted the upcoming BTC L2 conference as a crucial opportunity for showcasing exSat’s unique propositions and attracting attention from notable investors and organizations.


The exSat project represents a significant venture into the BTC L2 space for the EOS community, with ambitions to differentiate itself through innovative technology and strategic partnerships. The upcoming conference in Hong Kong will be a pivotal moment for the project, offering a chance to gain visibility among investors and the wider blockchain ecosystem. The focus on a compelling white paper and the project’s presentation at the conference were highlighted as critical steps towards achieving the project’s goals and securing its position in the competitive BTC L2 market.

Rethinking EOS Tokenomics: A Comprehensive Community Dialogue

The conversation surrounding a pivotal tokenomics shift for EOS, sparked by Yves La Rose’s provocative tweet about capping the EOS supply at 2 billion tokens, unraveled various dimensions of community sentiment and strategic foresight.

Diverse Insights on EOS Tokenomics Reform

  • Yves La Rose introduced the idea of capping the EOS token supply at 2 billion to spark a discussion on revamping the tokenomics of EOS, acknowledging the ecosystem’s stagnant market performance and seeking to stimulate debate on potential economic reforms. His tweet, suggesting an aggressive token release similar to Ethereum’s logarithmic curve, was meant to gauge community interest and market reaction, which proved positive and indicative of a desire for significant changes within EOS. Yves clarified that the proposal was at a conceptual stage, aiming to gather feedback rather than presenting a finalized plan. He addressed the mixed reactions, ranging from enthusiasm for halting inflation to concerns over token dilution and the long-term economic implications for EOS. Throughout the discussion, Yves emphasized the need for an open, public dialogue to explore innovative solutions, contrasting this approach with past practices of internal development followed by public release. He acknowledged the challenges of balancing transparency and effective communication, expressing a willingness to explore different methods to engage the community and gather diverse input on EOS’s future direction.
  • Ross Dold expressed apprehension about the radical changes proposed to EOS’s tokenomics, specifically concerning the idea of minting additional tokens to cap the supply. While acknowledging the appeal of no inflation from a holder’s perspective, he was apprehensive about the potential market dilution such an influx of tokens might cause. Ross highlighted his lack of expertise in token economics but recognized the need for action given EOS’s lackluster performance over the years. He called for more discourse from the community and his fellow Block Producers, emphasizing his cautious stance towards such a significant alteration to EOS’s economic model.
  • Tony Tsao emphasized the need for EOS to stand out in the competitive BTC L2 market by crafting a unique and compelling narrative, highlighting the importance of a well-thought-out and attractive white paper. He cautioned against rushing into significant changes without thorough internal and public discussions, stressing the importance of strategic deliberation and consensus. Tony advocated for engaging tokenomics experts to design an effective economic model for EOS, pointing out the necessity of professional, prudent planning and collective action to ensure any changes lead to a positive transformation for EOS.
  • Guillaume voiced support for revisiting EOS’s token economics, suggesting the system in place was outdated and could benefit from a comprehensive overhaul. He proposed establishing a governance mechanism specifically tasked with evaluating and adjusting EOS’s tokenomics, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach that incentivizes genuine on-chain economic activity. Guillaume highlighted the lack of attention currently given to such crucial aspects of the ecosystem and suggested that EOS could explore performance-based incentives for experts to develop a new tokenomics model. He stressed the importance of creating a consistent strategy aligned with EOS’s objectives to promote sustainable growth and real user engagement, rather than short-term speculative gains.
  • Aaron Cox voiced support for the idea of radical changes to EOS’s tokenomics but emphasized the importance of having a detailed and actionable plan before making any decisions. He suggested structuring the discussion around identifying key areas for token allocation if inflation were to cease, to ensure a broad spectrum of community and Block Producer input. Aaron appreciated the concept of public brainstorming but advocated for a more organized approach to frame the discussions, potentially identifying specific objectives for the use of the newly minted tokens. He acknowledged the need for significant changes within EOS but stressed the necessity of a structured and thoughtful exploration of the options available.
  • Peter Watt emphasized the critical need for EOS to adopt a carefully considered approach to any proposed changes in its token model, highlighting the importance of aligning such changes with the platform’s broader goals and the necessity to attract new users. He stressed the significance of maintaining a coherent narrative, particularly with initiatives like the BTC L2 project in mind. Given EOS’s historical price performance challenges, Peter underscored the importance of thoughtful deliberation and extensive community engagement before implementing any tokenomics adjustments. He noted his initial reaction to Yves’s tweet suggested an already made decision, reflecting on the presentation’s formality and the potential for misinterpretation within the community.
  • Dafeng Guo advocated for clear communication to ensure the EOS community understands the tokenomics discussion is ongoing and open for contributions. He agreed with the approach of engaging the public in these conversations but expressed concern that the specificity of the initial tweet might have given the impression of a finalized decision. Dafeng emphasized the importance of targeting new users as part of any tokenomics reform, suggesting that efforts should not only focus on reactivating past users but also on expanding the EOS user base. He proposed that significant portions of any inflation redirection should aim at attracting individuals unfamiliar with EOS, potentially aligning with narratives around projects like BTC L2 to draw fresh interest to the platform.

Critical Takeaways and Action Points:

  • Communication Strategy: Highlighting some views of clear communication to manage community expectations and ensure widespread understanding that proposals are open for input and not yet decided.
  • Holistic Approach: Speakers advocated for a comprehensive review of EOS’s tokenomics that goes beyond immediate fixes, aiming for a strategy that supports long-term sustainability and growth.
  • Public Engagement: Despite differing opinions on the approach, there was agreement on the value of engaging the community in these discussions. Yves’s method of sparking debate was seen as a double-edged sword, though it was acknowledged as a novel way to gather immediate feedback.


The EOS community stands at a crossroads, contemplating significant tokenomics changes to invigorate the ecosystem. While Yves La Rose’s tweet opened the floor to this vital conversation, the path forward requires careful deliberation, expert involvement, and a commitment to transparency and community engagement. The collective wisdom of the community, paired with targeted expertise, will be crucial in crafting a tokenomics model that ensures EOS’s vibrancy and resilience.

Block Producer Attendee List

  • Big.ONE
  • Blockpool
  • Defibox
  • Detroit Ledger Technology
  • EOSeoul
  • EOS Asia
  • EOSflytoMARS
  • EOSInfStones
  • EOSLambdacom
  • EOS Nation
  • EOS Pizza
  • EOSphere
  • EOSSupport
  • EOS Titan
  • GenerEOS
  • Greymass
  • Hashfin
  • Moreisfuture
  • Newdex
  • SlowMist
  • StartEOS

EOS Network

The EOS Network is a 3rd generation blockchain platform powered by the EOS VM, a low-latency, highly performant, and extensible WebAssembly engine for deterministic execution of near feeless transactions; purpose-built for enabling optimal Web3 user and developer experiences. EOS is the flagship blockchain and financial center of the Antelope framework, serving as the driving force behind multi-chain collaboration and public goods funding for tools and infrastructure through the EOS Network Foundation (ENF).


The EOS EVM is an emulation of the Ethereum EVM, housed within an EOS smart contract. It offers feature parity to other EVMs in the space but with unmatched speed, performance and compatibility. EOS EVM connects the EOS ecosystem to the Ethereum ecosystem by allowing developers to deploy a wide array of Solidity-based digital assets and innovative dApps on EOS. Developers can use EOS EVM to take advantage of Ethereum’s battle-tested open source code, tooling, libraries and SDKs, while leveraging the superior performance of EOS.

EOS Network Foundation

The EOS Network Foundation (ENF) was forged through a vision for a prosperous and decentralized future. Through our key stakeholder engagement, community programs, ecosystem funding, and support of an open technology ecosystem, the ENF is transforming Web3. Founded in 2021, the ENF is the hub for EOS Network, a leading open source platform with a suite of stable frameworks, tools, and libraries for blockchain deployments. Together, we are bringing innovations that our community builds and are committed to a stronger future for all.