You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Method to the Madness - Vulture Capitalism Comes to the Blockchain

in #steem8 months ago

To me, @dhimmel's solution seems like the best way to fix this. It can demonstrate that any attempt to fork the chain against the will of the organic community with astroturf witnesses will result in a forked chain. Ice him out of the old iteration and fork defensively after he breaks off into a new path. This way, it is him shooting himself in the foot as opposed to us eating the rich (regardless of what his intentions were).

Then, let the exchanges decide which coin they want to represent after they judge us based on our actions. Perhaps, if he's made aware of this potential, he'd be far less likely to do it. It seems logical not to, simply so he can retain a higher value on his stake. This is why I don't oppose the gridlock because it allows both sides to stew in it more.

Setting aside what his initial intentions are, it doesn't make sense for either party to fork the chain if they care about the value of the stake. I'm not too clear on the technical implications of his plan, but I ran it by a few people, and they seem to think it's a viable solution. It might even be wise to put him on notice that he runs the risk of this happening so that he can make a logical choice.

"He who thinks he leads but has no followers is only taking a walk." ― John Maxwell

Contrarily, were the witnesses to act in bad faith and fork him out of his investment after he backed down; if I were running an exchange, I'd drop that community's token like a bad habit, simply because they've proven they won't honor their token.

If he is put on notice, then isolating his stake after he burns the community is a defensive move. However, to preemptively do it, looks like a hostile action.

It's easy to see how he could perceive what was done to him in the soft fork as hostile, but he also appears to have had hostile intentions towards the organic community. IMO, how this ends will firmly establish the reputation of Justin Sun and the community's blockchain regardless of whether or not it remains Steem.

Vulture capitalist, or venture capitalist, we need to set a good precedent with regards to honoring their ability to take their stake to the marketplace, if we don't I don't think there will be a marketplace for our token. All the other weirdness of what he can do within the steem ecosystem with his ninja power is reasonably an internal community matter because this is a very unique situation. The sooner we allow the "neon green" stake to go to the market, the sooner it becomes a decentralized stake.

Sort:  

"...they judge us based on our actions."

I don't think that's how this works.

We've seen how the exchanges will proceed when the Steem community is opposed by Sun, and it's not going to be based on our actions, but their financial ties, and Sun has significant influence in that regard.

Regarding forks, we'd better have a preferred option ready to roll out when Sun's is ready, because we will likely prefer nearly anything to whatever Sun implements when he gains consensus.

We'll see about exchanges in the aftermath, once Sun and Steem are a separate entity. Without a community to imbue his token with value, regardless of their prior relationships with Sun, it's likely his token will be dropped eventually by exchanges, and that will not have any bearing on a new token the community fork supports, which will have the value of the use case that provides.

There's no reason that exchanges wouldn't list that coin, as long as it will make them money.

Thanks!

"There's no reason that exchanges wouldn't list that coin, as long as it will make them money."

Well, that's the thing—If you fork out the largest
buyer of Steem in history, it will set a precedent
that Steem might not be a safe investment, and
this is why I think it's important how the fork
goes down, if it goes down. Preferably, he could
safely remove his socks without having to worry
about losing his stake. Then Steem could carry on
without forking anyone over. And the value of the
coin will stay in one coin, instead of getting diluted
into two different coin listings. Exchanges will make
money as if the cryptosphere believes in Steem and
they may depend on how the Community behaves.
(WoS) wisdom of the stake, is supporting gridlock.
Perhaps the majority of Steem power doesn't want
anybody to break/-and-or-fork anything up.

I can't speak for any stake but mine, but I sure don't want Steem to get all forked up. I still would prefer that to a unitary executive.

I reckon most stake does too. In the event Sun forces a fork - which I am almost sure he will - if we have a suitable fork available to migrate to, I think most of the community will migrate to that fork to avoid being Sun's property on his fork.

Where goes the community the value will go too. While Sun might get his buddies to list his coin, without the community they won't make money on that coin.

The community's coin will make them money, because the community buys and sells it's coins.

It sounds like the community precipitated
one. So, I guess we shall see what it do and
how well it is received by the marketplace.

Everything in it's season. The harvest follows the planting in due time.

Unfortunately we can't put a lot of faith or trust in the exchanges helping us out with their aiding of JS in this clusterfuck. They'll support their corrupt crony friend and fucking the community in a heartbeat.

Posted using Partiko Android

Right but with dhimmel's plan we don't need
to trust Sun. We simply act accordingly if /&/
when he choose to fork everything up. Read
his latest post, see what you think about it.