Open Letter to STEEM/TRON/Exchanges (aka Bengy's little crank out...).
Okay... this is my last little shot into the dark about the TRON and STEEM and all the drama of the last week. Firstly, let me say that it is great that people are at least starting to talk to each other. However, I'm starting to get a bit worried that people are starting to enjoy a bit too much the time in the limelight at the cost of actually getting ourselves out of this stupid mess that we find ourselves in. It is starting to occasionally sound a bit like a high school politics debate class than a decent talk between adults...
I want to get back to boring for witnesses who I agree with their vision for Steem...not because they are notTRON or notSTEEM... There is enough of that sort of crap in the real world two party democracies. I want vision... Not team sports.
So, this is addressed to all three sides, in no particular order...
STEEM
Yes, I get it... we were all a bit scared and worried after the AMA answered nothing about our concerns. We screwed up by enacting the well-intentioned soft fork... we didn't realise how it would come across.. of course, in hindsight it was heavy handed and quite possible to interpret in a hostile fashion... however, well intentioned and "temporary".
We can't expect the TRON side to give up their TRON witnesses... they need the insurance... especially after we fired the first shot (even if we thought it was only a rubber bullet!).
Yes, it sucks hard that the exchanges and TRON colluded to smash our representatives aside... but in some ways, this is a silver lining. Be thankful that they ONLY reversed the soft fork and highlighted a serious flaw in our on-chain flavour of dPOS governance. This will NEED to be fixed in a more flexible way than binding and restricting certain accounts... after all, there may come a time in the future that we will need the exchanges and @steemit to provide the stability that their stakes provide. This might mean that we give up some consensus witness positions to have the exchanges/@steemit have some representation in governance... this would be best done NOT with the current 30 votes/20 consensus model. It WILL mean that some of you will lose your positions... or verify less blocks per day... but leaders do what is best for the COMMUNITY!
Please don't pursue ideological agendas and personal grievences... we now realise that our chain was not adequately decentralised as we relied on TRUST in third parties. We need a governance system that is TRUST-LESS... this is what decentralisation means.
TRON
Yes, I get it... you did what you thought was required to recover the hard earned assets of @justinsunsteemit and @steemit after what seemed like an unfair locking up. It was heavy-handed and came across pretty badly... but thanks for not doing more than reversing the soft fork and not completely screwing us all, we need to learn the lesson that our current model of dPOS is not adequate.
I do think that the TRON (@steemit) stake needs to have some representation in the consensus witnesses... after all, we shouldn't deny our largest stakeholders... even if we are odds about whether or not that stake should exist. This isn't possible under the current dPOS model that we have here... please work with the other sides to work this out in a way that is TRUST-LESS...
I get the fact that you feel aggrieved and attacked from the start on the chain... you (@justinsunsteemit) are much richer and more influential than most of us will ever be... please be the bigger man and avoid those impulses to be reflexive (that "post"... calling the witnesses hackers...).
As the @steemit account, you have the responsibility to support development and projects of this chain. Your delegations support worthwhile projects that have mostly been shown to add value to the blockchain... Don't be hasty about making changes!
Exchanges
Please power down... I get that you acted in haste and powered up to "protect" the STEEM chain from what you thought was a malicious attack. You are getting the liquidity back in stages of 13 weeks. A faster powerdown would really damage our chain... you don't need to be faster than that... 1/13th of your stake is more than you would expect to be withdrawn anyway... and if it is, then you can delay or cap withdrawals to manage that...
Even if you powered down and lost 1/13 of your voting stake... you would still have enough voting power to stomp on both the STEEM and TRON sides. However, it would be seen as a de-escalation of the crisis....
Conclusion
I have enough divas and drama queens through my real life work... There is more than enough misunderstanding and hurt egos to go around... I just want this all fixed!
No one is going to "win"... STEEM and TRON are going to have to learn to live together... fixing the governance problem without resorting to binding would be a good way to start...
All I am is one of many thousands of "community" members who everyone is saying that they represent... and that is my two cents (aka dust threshold...) worth! Into the ocean it goes....
I'm going back to posting nerdy little things about music and PC games... and stupid parenting things....Plus, this bottle is still looking too full!
Coin Tracking
Looking for a quick and easy way to keep track of your cryptocurrencies? Coin Tracking offers a free service that includes manual tracking or automatic tracking via APIs to exchanges, allowing you to easily track and declare your cryptocurrencies for taxation reports. Coin Tracking can easily prepare tax information sheets that are catered to each countries individual taxation requirements (capital gains, asset taxation, FIFO). Best to declare legally and not be caught out when your crypto moons and you are faced with an unexpected taxation bill (unless you are hyper secure and never attach any crypto with traceable personal information, good luck with that!).
Keep Your Crypto Holdings Safe with Ledger
Ledger is one of the leading providers of hardware wallets with the Ledger Nano S being one of the most popular choices for protecting your crypto currencies. Leaving your holdings on a crypto exchange means that you don’t actually own the digital assets, instead you are given an IOU that may or may not be honoured when you call upon it. Software and web based wallets have their weakness in your own personal online security, with your private keys being vulnerable in transit or whilst being stored upon your computer. Paper wallets are incredibly tiresome and still vulnerable to digital attacks (in transit) and are also open to real world attacks (such as theft/photography).
Supporting a wide range of top tokens and coins, the Ledger hardware wallet ensures that your private keys are secure and not exposed to either real world or digital actors. Finding a happy medium of security and usability, Ledger is the leading company in providing safe and secure access to your tokenised future!
Account banner by jimramones
It's hard to see what a compromise would look like. Steem wants the contract with Ned about the use of the STINC stake honoured, and Sun wants to be able to sell that stake at any point of his choosing. These two lines in the sand don't share any overlap.
Maybe a compromise (if coding it is feasible) is for us (steem) to lock up a proportion (25%?) of the STINC stake for a set period of time (1 or 2 years?) to be used for growing the blockchain value. After that point all the stake is available for Sun to withdraw at his pleasing. Sun is ultimately going to get the latter with the help of the exchanges by the looks of it, so it makes sense to give him that ability while still working to grow the value of his investment.
Impossible. The "contract" with Ned was verbal and Justin bought that steem in the deal so it is his without restriction. I'm sure he was not told of the ninja mined stake and it's purpose but that does not change the fact that there was no written contract expressing exactly what could and could not be done with that STEEM.
As for us (our witnesses) locking up a portion of said stake, I find it highly unethical. I do not like businessemen like Justin and am definitely not on his side. As I see it though, he was sold a company and all its holdings and they are now his to do with as he wishes.
It is obvious that fuckingNed misrepresented what he was selling and Justin did not do his due diligence to know exactly what he was getting but that does not change the fact that Justin now owns that STEEM and can do whatever he wants with them.
Then the only 'solution' will probably be a fork off to Classic Steem and we all leave this Steem blockchain empty. But even that has a lot of downsides. Or perhaps Sun will sell all his stake and fuck off. That would tank the steem price, of course.
I'm having a hard time seeing a scenario where the price doesn't not tank. Working together maybe? Probably too late for that.
Posted via Steemleo
Verbal Contracts are just as legally binding as written contracts, the only difference is how easy it is in order to prove what the actual agreement is.
That said, without knowing the exact details it's really hard to know what Neds legal obligations were, and what Justin's legal obligations are. This applies to both the verbal agreement between Ned and the witness's as well as the agreement between Justin and Ned.
Possibly, but we are in crypto world... At best unregulated and at worst unrecognised.
Even a legal suit would be worthless, as it would take months or years, and things move in the order of seconds or days here. Plus, who would stump up for lawyers?
Well said @bengy. I was just coming over to comment the same sentiment. I know verbal agreements can be binding but it's the wild west in crypto and there is next to zero precedent in this case.
Posted via Steemleo
I agree... We should treat this as an expensive lesson in fixing our governance system. It is hard on false assumptions, and the old witnesses need to be visionary and fix it... But I worry that self interest is stronger.
I tend to agree. It was nice to hear most get together on PAL Discord to try to forge a path forward but if/when we gain control I do not have high hopes of most staying together.
Posted via Steemleo
We shouldn't try to bind @steemit to anything... It is a list cause and we need to learn. We based too much on off chain trust and words. Governance needs to be fixed immediately, and that will require courage, vision and sacrifice from the old witnesses...
Congratulations @bengy! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
Well what I found it very weird was... exchanges thinking about meddling into a blockchain... it isn't their job to do that... with customers funds... 30 million steem of customers funds risk of losing that funds but worst of all losing their credibility...
It's the same if new York exchange is using customers funds of tesla to get a votingright into tesla... you know? What is next... they lost their credibility by doing this... It's not hard to say it's my vision not others. Ohhh waaiit I don't want to go to mars I will use all the stock of elon musk on launchday and say hey! Don't go to mars... solve problems here first!
That is more a thing what keeps going rounds in my head. How is it possible that an exchange... a few exchanges desides what happens in a blockchain?
Yes, it was pretty crappy that they did that... But they worked under the mistaken assumption that they were acting to secure the chain.
I would argue that it isn't the same analogy. The NYSE is a clearing house for trades and does not hold any assets in custody. As far as I know, if you have stocks under custody (asset management like a pension fund) you don't directly control the voting either, this would be a more accurate analogy. In other POS crypto, there is explicit consent that the exchanges will use your stake in exchange for block reward distribution.
That said, crypto is so unregulated that any a ology is likely broken...
Which brings us to this... Our current model of dpos is broken because it allowed this to happen. We trusted that exchanges and large stakeholders wouldn't collude... But it is possible under the governance rules. Specifically, 30 votes and 20 consensus witnesses.
In a true decentralised network, we shouldn't be relying on words, trust and assumptions. This is the greater problem... However, a true solution will likely involve exchanges and large stakeholders having representation and veto in the consensus witnesses (which may be more than 20...) and old witnesses losing either position and/or revenue.
This, it needs vision from the old witnesses... Or will self interest be stronger?
Well what must be changed must be changed. Like that 30 votes top 20 witnesses.
Also in a view of Someone taking over... If I had invested 1 mil euro last year I would have voted on the old witnesses to turn the power back but... that would mean that I a major stakeholder meddle in a war also... to protect my investment and believe me I would go very very far in that knowing that besides the 1 mill invested I would have much more funds available and I would have booked a flight to those exchanges, Justin Sun to hear their point of view... that shouldn't be possible...
2 it shouldn't be possible for 1 man/corporation to have full control over a blockchain. (You don't have any need to freeze an account by doing this)
3 exchanges shouldn't meddle into blockchains.. (1 CEO's last name is also Sun?)
4 only 20 witnesses deside what to do with a blockchain? So it could be possible to turnover the top 20 like now is happened.. a false democration. That must be dealt with.