RE: My Thoughts: Steem Witnesses meet with Justin Sun (1st contact)
(Edited)
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
FFS... in the time that I wrote this post... we dropped from 10 to 2 witnesses.
0
0
0.000
That's just unbelievable!
proxy.token votes put most of the puppets back in, that account controls over 6 million SP.
Does this change your opinion expressed above?
No, it doesn't. I still don't think we should lord it if we regain an upper hand and make demands. Gentle concessions and understanding will be better.
Keep in mind that the exchanges are going to be tilted towards tron if we look like we are going to shaft them for their actions.
I completely agree. The debate is if steemit owns their stake or is a custodian. Justin saw an opportunity and says he did his legal due diligence and isn't going to just give in.
He won't stop calling them malicious hackers who tried to steal his private property until they present a lot of convincing evidence it is not his private property.
Honestly, I don't think that there is proof that would hold up in a court... and crypto isn't really a regulated space... Steemit might be, but what would we do... a class action, that is a joke and a token gesture at the best of times!
I think that the stake is a lost cause... the real problem is the broken governance model... but I think the witnesses are going to dodge that, and present the problem as the big bad exchanges and Sun.
Welcome to the supreme court of Steem where whoever has the most is the court. No country or national court may interfere with our domestic internal affairs. Putside arbitration is the last thing I want. I have a feeling they don't care about us little guys. But they are definitely greedybenough to believe Ned and Justin don't get it either. Binance and Huobi said they won't get involved which means they will accept the out come as long as we don't punish them, too. I can agree to that.
There ate definitely other issues and fundamental flaws with Steem. Part of me wants to reset and find another blockchain, while part of me wants to hold on to the last satoshi and fork away.
Still, a good read and it’s not over yet.
... and it's still going...
I see 7 as of now. (four hours after you wrote this comment)
Posted via Steemleo
Seven now, there was an agreement with the Korean community proxy to keep a balance whilst things were being worked out.
That's pretty cool. I would like to see more information about that.
Posted via Steemleo
I don't think the recording shows that Ned didn't tell Justin about the prior promises for the stake, and actually I think if you read between the lines it more likely confirms that Justin DID know of this. A non disclosure agreement between Ned and Justin RE the sale was mentioned in the recording - by the nature of a NDA of course we don't know what was covered, but it would be much harder to believe that Justin had no idea of prior commitments to the stake, than it would be to believe that he did know about it, didn't consider prior commitments by stinc to be legally binding to him after he purchased the stake, and that he is pretending ignorance while communicating with witnesses to buy time while he continues to try to gain more Steem to stake, push through a hardfork with short power down time, and allow the exchanges who helped him to get their steem liquid again... because that is exactly what his actions have been. Don't listen to the words, watch the hand holding the knife.
EDIT - and actually, you can just listen to the words as well - how many times in that talk with the witnesses did he say variants of "the past history between you and Ned is between you and Ned, and has nothing to do with me". That doesn't read to me like he was unaware of the past history, it reads to me like he doesn't think it has anything to do with him and his purchase of the stake. It is debatable if the multiple promises on the chain RE the intended use of the Steem stake amounted to a legal obligation that would transfer to a new owner of the company, particularly when those promises were worded in such a way as to keep it open e.g. in the Steem road map which many people point to there is wording that the uses listed are not an exclusive list. Not to mention, the programmatic powerdown and sell off that Stinc was doing the entire time was NOT used for development and was instead used to send $ dividends to Stinc shareholders, so precedent was already in place for exactly what Justin stated he planned to do with the stake - sell it and profit from it.
I did notice those words as he did keep going back to them... However, I took it to mean that past agreements, as known to him now, are not binding (even if they were legal in a blog post?) to him?
But yes, I do agree that the Steemit stake has never really properly and legally defined... We just chose to read what we wanted in what was said.
However, I'm not really sure what the end goal is if he planned to just dump the Steem? That in itself seems not as profitable as you would think. A consensus witness takeover also doesn't seem really required for that either (until the soft fork). I do think that there is more at play as well... But I don't see what the goal is.