In the world of blockchain, EOS's development journey is full of drama, resembling a rollercoaster legend. It once stood at the industry's peak, full of expectations, only to fall rapidly into the depths of despair. Now, EOS is striving to explore a path to rebirth, attempting to shine once again in the blockchain field.
1. A Glorious Beginning: The Star Project Makes Its Debut
From 2017 to 2018, EOS burst onto the public stage with overwhelming momentum. The company behind it, Block.one, rose rapidly through a record-breaking $4.1 billion ICO, attracting global attention. EOS was promoted as the representative of 'Blockchain 3.0', boasting a series of impressive features: its claimed 'million TPS (transactions per second)' far exceeded that of Ethereum and Bitcoin at the time, meaning it could handle massive transactions; the design of 'zero transaction fees' was also very attractive, significantly reducing user costs; and its 'developer-friendly' positioning opened the door for many developers, aiming to build a thriving decentralized application (DApp) ecosystem.
The DPoS (Delegated Proof of Stake) mechanism adopted by EOS is one of its highlights. This mechanism theoretically significantly enhances transaction speed compared to Bitcoin's PoW (Proof of Work) and Ethereum's PoS (Proof of Stake). By electing 21 super nodes to verify and generate new blocks, EOS processes transactions more efficiently. The backing of a luxurious team further adds to EOS's appeal, with participation from well-known figures like PayPal founder Peter Thiel instilling confidence in investors and developers. For a time, EOS became the darling of the blockchain industry, seen as a strong competitor challenging Ethereum's dominance and even regarded by some as the harbinger of a new era for blockchain.
2. The Decline After Greatness: The Hope Bubble Bursts
However, reality dealt a heavy blow to EOS. Over time, EOS's problems gradually surfaced, and its former glory quickly collapsed.
From a technical perspective, EOS's technical promises have almost all fallen flat. Although its mainnet claimed to support thousands of transactions per second, frequent congestion and transaction delays occurred in practical applications. In 2019, a zero-cost airdrop event on the EOS blockchain peaked at 620,000 transactions per hour within two days, which directly caused the EOS network to 'collapse'; the so-called million TPS was proven to be fragile in practice. Its complex account system, while allowing custom names, increased the development threshold, making it difficult for developers to build DApps and hindering the flourishing of the DApp ecosystem. A study by Imperial College London in 2020 showed that 95% of the transaction value on the EOS network was zero, with on-chain economic activity nearly stagnant, and the paradox of 'high performance and low usage' thoroughly exposed EOS's technical shortcomings.
In terms of governance, EOS's model had hidden dangers from the very beginning. After the mainnet launch in 2018, super nodes froze accounts suspected of being stolen without community consent, sparking intense debate about the principle of 'decentralization'. Subsequently, the relationship between Block.one and the EOS Foundation continued to deteriorate. The former was accused of misappropriating ICO funds (the SEC fined it $24 million for this), while the latter lost developer trust due to a vague strategic direction. The sudden departure of founder BM (Daniel Larimer) in 2019 further pushed the community division to a climax, with supporters questioning his 'abandonment of EOS' and opponents criticizing his 'excessive pursuit of technological ideals while neglecting commercial implementation'.
At the same time, EOS's 'pseudo-decentralized' architecture has become a primary target for regulators. In 2024, Block.one was once again embroiled in a class-action lawsuit, accused of manipulating token prices through 'false advertising', further undermining investor confidence. Against the backdrop of tightening traditional financial regulations, EOS's compliance dilemmas almost predetermined its difficulty in recreating past glories.
In the fierce market competition, EOS gradually lost its advantages. During the ICO boom of 2018, the market expected EOS to become an 'Ethereum killer', but developers quickly discovered that emerging public chains like Polkadot and Solana had advantages in performance, development tools, and governance transparency. For example, Solana achieved over 4000 TPS with its unique asynchronous architecture, while EOS's TPS lingered around 300; Polkadot built a more flexible ecosystem through a 'relay chain + parallel chain' model. In contrast, EOS's ecosystem construction stagnated, with its DApp count in 2020 being only 1/10 that of Ethereum and user activity continuously declining. Ironically, EOS attempted to save itself through 'forks', such as Telos and Wax, but was met with a mass exodus of developers and projects due to lower resource costs (e.g., RAM prices were only 1/3 of EOS's), which further accelerated the marginalization of the mainnet.
3. Rising from the Ashes: The Path of Transformation Exploration
After experiencing a long period of trough, EOS did not give up but actively sought opportunities for transformation and rebirth.
On March 18, 2025, EOS announced a rebranding to Vaulta and a transformation towards Web3 banking, focusing specifically on 'four pillars': wealth management, consumer payments, portfolio management, and insurance. This strategic shift marks EOS's attempt to completely break free from the past troubles of public chains and seek new directions for development. The official transition will take place at the end of May 2025, when the token swap portal will launch, allowing EOS holders to exchange EOS 1:1 for Vaulta tokens.
Once the news broke, OKX market data showed that the price of EOS soared, rising over 35% in the past 8 hours, surpassing $0.64, setting a recent high. This round of rebound has rekindled hope for EOS's future, but the real challenge lies in whether these transformation measures can be successfully implemented and truly attract user and institutional participation.
From the specific empowerment of the transformation, although the new Vaulta token will not change the original EOS token economics, Vaulta will launch with 250 million tokens for the staking reward program, but its dynamic annual yield is expected to increase to 17%. This is somewhat attractive to investors and is expected to draw more funds in. Vaulta has partnered with licensed custody institution Ceffu to help Vaulta token holders achieve complex institutional-level yield strategies without abandoning custody. Holders can earn returns by using quantitative strategies to hold BTC, ETH, USDT, USDC, Vaulta, etc., which will democratize financial services that were previously applicable only to wealthy individuals or institutions.
Vaulta also plans to establish strategic partnerships with tokenization platforms to provide exclusive RWA (Real World Asset) investment opportunities for Vaulta token holders, including decentralized ownership in traditional illiquid markets such as real estate, commodities, and stocks. This will create closer ties between cryptocurrencies and real-world assets, expand users' investment channels, and bring more application scenarios and development potential to Vaulta.
However, EOS faces numerous challenges during its transformation process. Firstly, there has been a problem of 'promotion exceeding reality' since EOS's inception; if this transformation cannot genuinely realize its promised functions and values, it may only be a flash in the pan, unable to gain long-term recognition from users and the market. Secondly, the Web3 banking business is an emerging field facing multiple risks, including regulatory uncertainty and fierce market competition. How to compete with traditional financial institutions and other Web3 projects under the premise of compliance is a key issue that Vaulta needs to address. Additionally, rebuilding user trust will also require time and effort; EOS's past failures have led many to adopt a cautious attitude towards it, and Vaulta needs to prove its strength and reliability through tangible actions.
4. Future Outlook: Dawn or Mirage?
The journey of EOS from despair to rebirth is a microcosm of the development of the blockchain industry. It witnessed the early fervor and restlessness of the industry and also experienced the harsh baptism of the market. Now, EOS is embarking anew under the identity of Vaulta, standing at a new starting point.
In the future, if Vaulta can successfully implement its transformation strategy and effectively address the various challenges it faces, it is expected to secure a place in the Web3 space and achieve true rebirth. By providing innovative financial services and attracting more users and institutions to participate, Vaulta could potentially build a prosperous ecosystem, opening new avenues for the application of blockchain technology in finance. However, if the transformation fails, EOS may completely fade into the dust of history, becoming a failed case in the development of the blockchain industry.
Regardless of EOS's ultimate fate, its experience offers valuable lessons for future projects. In the development of the blockchain industry, while technological innovation is crucial, it is also necessary to balance decentralization, developer incentives, and user experience, focusing on the practical implementation and sustainable development of projects. Only in this way can success be achieved in this field full of opportunities and challenges. We look forward to EOS (Vaulta) creating miracles and achieving a magnificent turnaround from despair to rebirth, and we also hope that the blockchain industry can mature and thrive through continuous exploration and practice.
