RE: Was There A Contract?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
délégation could be seen as promoting/funding development on chain which is where the stake was meant for
Posted using Partiko Android
0
0
0.000
It's fine to argue that projects delegated to by Ned were all in the spirit of the improving the project, apart from the actual contract terms. Some would disagree, but let's assume that every single project that got delegation from Ned were seen as promoting/funding development.
My point is not that the delegations themselves were the problem. My point is that after HF14, Ned had the opportunity to make the contract formally recognized on-chain. Yet the witnesses instead continued to approve hardfork after hardfork.
HF14 - Ned can formalize the contract on-chain but doesn't.
HF15 - From a consensus perspective, these are bug fixes. Witnesses apparently prefer to hardfork than hold Ned's feet to the fire, which is perhaps understandable due to the bug fixes.
HF16 - Switched to chainbase and change to 13-week powerdown. Witnesses again prefer to hardfork over upholding the contract on-chain.
HF17 - Delegation added. Witnesses again prefer to hardfork over upholding the contract on-chain.
My point is, the opportunity to formalize the terms in HF14 were not enough of a sticking point to witnesses. They instead preferred to move forward, evolve the platform, and in my view, abandon the contract.
The witnesses had the opportunity and could have stopped further hardforks until the contract was adopted on-chain.
I see your point but in my eyes, there is no breakpoint of the verbal contract.
Not grabbing the chances to formalise the contract does not imply the verbal contract is broken. If me and you make a verbal contract, it doesn't have to be written to make it valid even if we do have pen and paper
So i am sorry to go straight to the point as lawyers do but as such, i am interested in the section obligation where you stated delegation was not adhering to the initial agreement while it may be argued it is, although....cases like sssweetsss will be hard to defend... :-)
Seriously good post though, nice to read the applicable laws
The thing about verbal contracts is that although they are enforceable, all parties still have to stipulate the facts and submit those facts as evidence.
In a sense, a verbal contract literally becomes written once there's a dispute to adjudicate. This is great because it avoids paperwork for simple agreements, only requiring such paperwork when there's a dispute. Verbal contracts cannot be argued until they are entered into evidence.
Judge Judy: Did you verbally agree to build a wall for the defendant in exchange for chickens?
Plaintiff: Yes.
Judge Judy: Did you verbally agree to give chickens to the plaintiff to the in exchange for building a wall?
Defendant: Yes.
Judge Judy: Did you build the wall?
Plaintiff: Yes.
Judge Judy: Did you give chickens?
Defendant: No.
Judge Judy: Why not?
Defendant: It was just a verbal contract.
That would be an invalid argument because the verbal contract was agreed upon and stipulated on the record.
I have a hard time imagining a scenario where all of the parties stipulate the facts related to the pre-mined stake situation, much less enter them as evidence for a trial.