EOS regeneration incident, the community condemns the foundation for running away and leaving no way out

2025-11-26 22:00:20

Collection

The collapse of Vaulta is not only a tragedy for EOS, but also a reflection of the trampling of Web3 ideals.

Original Title: Vaulta Foundation's "Eating the Last Meal" Record: Price Plummets, Audit Disappears, Community Trust Completely Collapses

Original Author: MMK (@mmk_btc), Vaulta Community Member

Original Editor: Rhythm Xiaogong, Rhythm BlockBeats

Editor's Note: Many people know about EOS, the early "Ethereum killer" that raised $4.2 billion in a sensational financing round seven years ago. However, few are aware that after BM was ousted from EOS, the parent company Block.one took the funds raised and shifted its focus to creating the IPO trading platform Bullish. The remaining EOS was taken over by the EOS Network Foundation, led by CEO Yves La Rose, who is referred to as "Big Beard" by the community due to his thick beard. Subsequently, under Big Beard's leadership, EOS was renamed Vaulta, shifting towards Web3 banking services, and the EOS Network Foundation was also renamed the Vaulta Foundation. Recently, Big Beard's sudden departure has caused dissatisfaction within the community and sparked accusations regarding his past actions.

The Vaulta Foundation (formerly the EOS Network Foundation) is experiencing an unprecedented collapse of trust: after burning tens of millions of dollars over four years, the token price continues to hit new lows; projects have repeatedly failed, and financial records have gone from public to non-existent; management has "gracefully" resigned, yet the authority has not been handed over… This article will reveal the various mysteries of Vaulta, telling a story of eating the last meal.

Yves Resigns: Graceful Exit or Behind-the-Scenes "Shadow Governance"?

On November 12, 2025, Yves La Rose, the former CEO of the Vaulta Foundation (hereinafter referred to as VF), suddenly announced his resignation on the X platform, stating that he had notified the 21 block producers on October 29 that he would voluntarily step down and elect new representatives through on-chain governance. The statement was dignified, filled with "gratitude" and "vision," but the community was shocked to discover days later that the core multi-signature account of Vaulta was still under Yves's control, with no handover taking place.

Yves's personal resignation statement

Moreover, after resigning, Yves secretly pushed for Aaron Cox, the founder of Greymass, to take over his position. The first thing Aaron did after being thrust into the spotlight was to initiate a massive proposal of 10 million $A (EOS) to continue funding the core development budget. This move sparked widespread skepticism in the community: it was essentially using a proxy to "extend life" and divert remaining public funds.

Charge One: Lavish Spending, Marketing Expenditures Mysterious

Since VF was established in 2021, ecological development has not accelerated over time.

On the contrary, the community has witnessed another disturbing trend: the budget has expanded year by year, while the results have diminished.

Under the guise of "ecological revitalization," VF launched a market expansion plan in 2022-2023. VF indeed recruited an excellent marketing team, and they made efforts in brand operation and international events.

But the key question is—what have these extravagant investments actually brought?

According to nine disclosed quarterly reports, marketing-related expenditures (PR & Marketing) alone reached: $1,709,800 in Q4 2022; and another $1,072,887 in Q1 2023.

In just six months, nearly $2.8 million was spent on brand promotion and public relations activities. However, the community could only see results such as: number of conference attendances, images and reports; Twitter follower growth; 2000 days without downtime; EVM performance testing;

These data are not meaningless, but they resemble PR slides rather than a true reflection of the ecological state. Developer growth? Absent. Daily on-chain activity? Not disclosed. TVL? Almost nonexistent. Why does spending more lead to lower community perception? When all reports only discuss "highlights" and ignore "results," transparency naturally slips into a black box.

Charge Two: Immediate Payouts, Greymass's $5 Million Budget Controversy

In June 2024, VF allocated 15 million $A (EOS) to establish a "Middleware Special Fund," with the first batch of 5 million $A (EOS) allocated to the Greymass team, while the remaining 10 million is still in the eosio.mware account.

On-chain data shows: funds were transferred from the foundation's eosio.mware account to a newly established account by Greymass, uxuiuxuiuxui; subsequently, this wallet transferred funds monthly to the http://funds.gm account, noting "Operation + USD/CAD price," resembling "salary disbursement"; then, http://funds.gm transferred to http://rewards.gm, ultimately distributing to several accounts such as jesta, inconsistent, http://apporc.gm, etc., with transfer records annotated "Reward Payout + USD amount"; most salary accounts quickly transferred their funds to exchanges like Kraken or Coinbase for cashing out.

On-chain transfer records from rewards.gm (Data Source)

Note: The "middleware" built by Greymass refers to infrastructure tools that simplify account creation and interaction processes.

Although the Greymass team released several development updates at the beginning of the funding, there have been almost no technical achievements or interim summaries published in the past year. In particular, Greymass's middleware tools still have many technical issues regarding compatibility and stability, and have not been widely adopted by mainstream developers.

The focus of community skepticism lies in whether the 5 million $A (EOS) has any opaque behaviors such as duplicate salaries or unidentified accounts receiving wages? Is the fund allocation closely aligned with Aaron's appointment time, raising suspicions of "self-approved budgets"? Does the salary disbursement structure lack third-party oversight? We do not deny that Greymass has contributed to ecological development, nor do we deny Aaron's early technical reputation. But has there been a misdirection in the new policy? Has it deviated from its original development intention after losing oversight?

These questions remain unanswered.

What can be confirmed is that the silence and low output of the "Greymass $5 Million Project" make it difficult to respond to the external trust crisis, further exacerbating the community's doubts about the rationality of the foundation's fund usage.

Charge Three: Token Price Plummets, Foundation "Silent," Responsibility Becomes a Blind Spot

If technical achievements can be debated and marketing effects quantified, then token price is the most honest indicator.

This year, $A (EOS) has plummeted, hitting a low of $0.21—this is a dangerous signal that should trigger a red alert for any ecosystem. However, as the community continues to inquire, the foundation's response has consistently been: "The token price is not within the foundation's responsibilities."

This statement itself is irrefutable.

Technical organizations are not obligated to manipulate the market. But the contradiction lies in—when all ecological indicators decline and community confidence collapses, the foundation has not initiated any discussions on "stabilizing expectations" or "market protection mechanisms."

What follows are even more unsettling actions: the foundation announced its "dissolution," with no roadmap and no handover plan.

The community's doubt is not whether the foundation should be responsible for the token price, but rather: at this critical moment when the ecosystem is in a trust crisis, why choose to withdraw: is it due to incapacity, indifference, or are there issues that are inconvenient to face? Responsibility has vanished in this plunge.

Charge Four: From Weekly Updates to Silence, Transparency Disappears Quietly

When VF was first established, transparency was once its biggest selling point.

2021: Weekly updates (Everything EOS Weekly Report), providing real-time progress reports to the community;

2022: Monthly reports (Monthly Yield Report), with slight lapses for a few months, but still acceptable;

2023: Quarterly reports (ENF Quarterly report)

2024: Silence… …

2025: Silence… …

From the published report data, VF had the highest expenditure in Q4 2022, reaching $7,885,340; expenditures gradually declined in subsequent quarters.

However, these reports often only disclose total amounts, lacking detailed classifications and specifics, making it difficult for outsiders to judge the fund's whereabouts, and the community has long harbored doubts about the massive expenditures and lack of transparency.

The reports frequently mention plans such as Grant Framework and Pomelo, but in 2023, they experienced a phase of "suspension"; meanwhile, the promised fund management for specific projects in the white paper has not seen detailed execution or public settlement, and the whereabouts of funds after being allocated to exchanges remain a mystery.

This breakdown in transparency and years of extravagance ultimately led to a collapse in community confidence.

From intensive disclosures to gradually sparse updates, and now to complete silence, the disappearance of transparency almost synchronizes with the ecological heat curve.

More notably, since Q1 2024, no financial reports have been released. No financial audits, no budget distributions, no project lists, no unsettled allocations.

The community is forced to accept the fact that the foundation's operations have shifted from "high-frequency transparency" to "complete black box."

Meanwhile, several cooperative projects that VF once promoted have mostly stalled at the "communication stage," lacking actual implementation. The once-promised "transparent operations" have ultimately devolved into a silent cliff.

Charge Five: Arbitrary Allocations, Grants Become a "Black Hole," No One Knows Where the Money Went

Looking back at the foundation's early days, VF indeed attempted to rebuild the Vaulta (EOS) ecosystem through various funding programs, including Grant Framework, Recognition Grants, and public funding pools used in conjunction with Pomelo.

During that phase, the speed and scale of fund disbursement were rapid, aiming to "stop the bleeding quickly."

We cannot deny that it did play a role in boosting morale in the early stages.

Here’s a note on Grants: VF's funding is divided into publicly recruited "Grant Framework" (milestone-based funding), aimed at individuals, teams, or companies, mostly for technical projects; Recognition Grants (awards given to projects) and public funding channels like Pomelo for distributing funds to ecological projects. That is, funding can be used for both profit-oriented projects and public goods/charity projects.

For example— in the first report of Q4 2021, VF allocated:

$3.5 million in Recognition Grants (averaging $100,000 per project);

$1.3 million to fund five technical working groups to write white papers;

$1.265 million to support the community autonomous organization EdenOnEOS;

$500,000 as the funding pool for the first season of Pomelo;

However, the problem is—this was also the only time VF fully disclosed the recipients of funding in the next four years.

From Q4 2021 to Q4 2023, although Grants consistently accounted for the largest share of quarterly expenditures (in some quarters, even 40%-60% of total expenditures), the reports no longer disclosed specific recipients of funding; did not disclose the actual amounts received by each project; did not reveal project acceptance statuses; did not mention details of fund usage; did not clarify whether projects delivered results according to milestones;

In other words, the numbers are visible, but the information has disappeared.

Only the first quarterly report disclosed the funding flow of each project. In the subsequent eight reports, while Grants remained the "largest portion" of expenditures, they no longer specified the benefiting projects or outcomes.

How much money was spent is visible, but where the money went is forever unknown.

Did the funding truly promote the ecosystem? Was the money used effectively? Were the projects completed? Why does the foundation never disclose more information?

It inevitably raises doubts: did the foundation use the banner of "ecological funding" to throw money around from the very beginning? Externally, it buys off the community and wins hearts, while internally, it hoards inflationary funds and reserves, lacking results and oversight.

VF's matching pool funds exceed ten million dollars, but most projects have extremely sparse updates, even disappearing after receiving funds.

The End of Another Era

The Vaulta Foundation once promised governance reform with a stance of "transparency and community-driven," but over the past four years, it has gradually moved towards closure and corruption.

From Yves's graceful resignation without handing over power, to the $5 million Greymass middleware funding lacking accountability, from millions spent quarterly on marketing with no effect, to silence after ecological funding—this is not a failure of "decentralized governance," but a victory of "centralized plunder."

This lengthy article serves as a list of charges and a warning document.

The collapse of Vaulta is not just a tragedy for EOS, but a microcosm of the trampling of Web3 ideals.