RE: My response to Justin
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
How can he possibly remove his witnesses without fear of you guys freezing his stake again? Do you not see that is what this is all about?
It's not about controlling the steem blockchain, he wants to ensure that you guys don't just take away the steem he just paid $10 million for.
You guys started all of this and are not unwilling to work with him. He can't remove his witnesses because you guys will simply take his property again.
0
0
0.000
He didn't pay anything close to $10 million. Don't assume facts that you don't know.
He PAID for it though. He who has the most has the vote power. If some other party bought 50 million worth on exchanges would they have their steem soft forked away too? I guess we will never know because no one is going to invest now are they? Ned dumped how much Steem every month and no one said boo, because Steemit inc owned assets including large amounts of steem. Steemit openly declared they OWNED those coins, why wasn't there a fork there and then?
Hypocritical to fork away Neds steem and not the other pre miners like Freedom, Bernie etc. just because those people are voting like you.
He paid for a company that came with certain history, obligations and reasonable expectations of the blockchain community it led.
I doubt it. More likely would be just forking to a new chain and leaving him behind which would also likely be a loss for him, but who knows. This is a hypothetical that did not happen.
Where are the videos of Bernie or Freedom promising to use that stake to develop the ecosystem? Where is the evidence that Bernie or Freedom rigged the mining setup to spend almost no money while attempting to evade regulations when doing a fund raise? Where is the history of that stake already being subject to possible remedy, by fork, of failure to properly support the ecosystem a year or two ago, something Justin could or should have known before he bought it? (And, unless we take him at his word, which at this point I'm not sure why anyone would do, we don't know that he didn't know.)
None of that exists. It isn't the same situation at all.
The Steemit ninja-mined stake is unique. The community considered (though ultimately decided against) forking controls over it when Ned was still in control of Steemit and then considered them again (and decided in favor) after Ned sold Steemit to Justin. Nothing really changed here with the sale of the company. Justin got just what he paid a heavily discounted price to get, which is (a company with) a weak claim on stake on the blockchain with historical and practical encumbrances against it.
Just because a previous ownership had intentions of how they would use their assets doesn't mean new ownership must have those same intentions.
That goes both ways. Just because the ownership of the company changed doesn't mean that the community's acceptable parameters on how the stake is to be used need to change.
Do you think Justin was aware (among a the vast history of complications that surrounded that stake) that forking to impose on-chain control over the stake was discussed a year or two ago but not carried out when Ned stopped powering down and hiding the stake and made various new promises (most not carried out) to fund a Foundation, improve transparency, etc.?
He should have known what he was getting into, no?
Sure, still doesn't mean he has to abide by it.
And you know this how?