The key question of whether or not the stake would be used for voting, and if it would be non-voting and for community growth the way it was promised by Steemit Inc before the acquisition, was asked by the witnesses to Steemit Inc just minutes after the news broke.
The witnesses then got together to formulate questions for the AMA between Justin and Ned which we were told would be used, instead, they were completely ignored.
On a daily basis, we asked for clarification on the most important subjects, such as whether or not there would be a forced token swap or if the stake would be used for witness voting. No answers came (I do understand that it may have been difficult to give a prompt and absolute answer to those questions, but it was still a very serious situation).
It is important to note that this soft fork is not a change to the blockchain or the relevant accounts. It is temporary, and can be completely undone once the situation is clear and different. I would consider it more of a "pause" while the Steemit Inc team and Tron gets the time to discuss and clarify their planned future to the rest of the community. Where there's now no need for the same irrational fear that existed before.
At least, I only approve of this conditioned on it being temporary, and that those who run it pursue a positive outcome with Steemit Inc and Tron.
What are the exact exit criteria of the fork?
I think that is quite important to nail down. There are no clear criteria for the cessation of the fork. In fact, If I were to be picky the wording of the statement implies that based on community feedback the fork can be adjusted.
That doesn't sound temporary to me.
If an action such as this is going to be taken then it should be communicated very clearly what needs to be done in order for the fork to be removed.
Unless the intention is for the fork to never be undone completely? If that is the case then it should not be ambiguous. It should not be open to interpretation.
Communication should be clear and concise and unambiguous.
I would challenge the idea that clarification was never received on the forced token swap, from what I saw it was. I am referring to the conversation with Andrarchy that Exyle himself had and posted about just recently. There was a lot cleared up there.
This asking ona daily basis. Who asked who? Via what channels? How was it escalated when no response was given? Was there any response?
Finally, the perception is what is key. The perception outwith this little fragile bubble we live in. We already have a poor reputation. This, in my opinion, does little to paint us in a better light.
I am glad that you approve of it being temporary. But how can it be if we do not know what I have outlined above?
Different witnesses may have different expectations. So far, there seem to be only two witnesses in the top 31 who do not run the soft fork (timcliff and jesta). Of these, some may be content with Steemit and Tron giving more information such as a roadmap or vision, plus stating what they will be doing with the stake. Others may have a more drastic view and think that the stake should not have been Ned's to sell for profit to begin with, and should instead stay with the community.
So how would it be resolved if there are different views for what the criteria should be? It's quite simple. As we learn more, some witnesses may be comforted by what they see and choose to not run the soft fork, then eventually there'll be a majority who do not, and it will be reverted.
My criteria is first that we get a concrete and detailed answer by Steemit Inc and Justin Sun themself. If their answer is drastically different to the original promise Steemit Inc had, then I think it would be fair for the community and stakeholders who invested time and money into Steem on that basis to have the time and availability to leave before such changes are applied. If they promise to treat the stake the way they did before through not voting, then I would expect them to use the "decline voting rights" operation which removes those functions from an account. If they do go along with the opinion that some have that the stake they have is supposed to be used for community growth and further decentralization, then I would hope to see some action performed that make this "trustless" through either a donation to the steem.dao, or a foundation.
The important part is this: We need to know if the previous conditions for the stake still apply or not. And if not, what the new conditions are. And then be able to move on from there.
I agree that there is a risk here in terms of perception. I also think Tron and Justin Sun offers a unique opportunity for Steem to gain some much needed marketing talent and financial resources. So I am motivated, and can promise, that I will do what I can to pursue a positive outcome for Steem, and hope for a situation where the two projects can find mutual benefit and create a win-win for users and stakeholders on both sides. Therefore I will be spending a lot of time and effort the next few days in a diplomatic way to try and make that happen.
The precedent set by what they just did is going to be felt throughout the entire crypto industry by all DPOS and POS blockchains. There had to be a better way.
What exactly were these witnesses saving btw? Their seat at the table?
Even if Justin tried to move steem over to tron, everyone would have the option of remaining with steem classic if they so desired. This looks like more about preserving witness spots then actually protecting steem. All of the Top 20 Witnesses (that voted for this) should step down indefinitely to prove that this was best for steem and not just for them financially.
While it may have taken this soft fork to trigger the news and install the potential FUD that it may, unfortunately, bring. It still was possible the whole time and thus never really changed in terms of dpos security and quality (although perception is of course important).
Also, the demonstrated negative effect that one entity of aligned witnesses can have also reinforces the argument for why it is so dangerous for one giant stakeholder to be able to vote in all the witnesses needed to have super majority...
My preference would be that following this, we reduce the total witness vote to 10. While it will still be theoretically possible for someone to spend a hundred million dollars (assuming they would make price go up) in order to get the stake needed to vote in 20 witnesses, it would take a lot more stake than it does right now.
That said, I can understand that in the face of such a vulnerability, witnesses find it responsible to "pause" the ability for that to happen until a workable solution or sufficient clarification/guarantee is in place.
Exactly! I think five to (at maximum) ten witness votes per account would be fine.
Already now the influence of - for example - @freedom on witness voting is far too big.
this will not help. to maintain the status quo one can create multiple account and spread the stake formerly with just one account to multiple and have the exact same influence.
Although the witness voting logistic is certainly open to discussion and potential solutions, this IMHO is not a solution to reduce influence over these lists.
Thanks for replying, but I don't get that:
If I spread my SP to - for example - three accounts, every of these accounts has only a third of the SP of the original account. So if then every of these three accounts voted for ten witnesses, the vote for every single witness would be significantly weaker (than a vote of the original account).
This effect would be even stronger in case every single account could only vote for lets say five witnesses.
I like the idea of 5 as well. I believe 10 to still be too high.
That is very comforting to hear. I appreciate that.
I wish, reading your criteria above (third para) that they were defined as such by the community consensus statement because your criteria are concrete and do elicit confidence.
They may, or they may be caught up in the group think and not wish to step out with the common thinking. You might be able to tell but I am not very fond of may in this circumstance. You could say that there may be a chance that strong personalities push their own distrust if Justin Sun onto others through the coming weeks. There may not be a sufficient answer and the softfork may remain in place forever.
I guess we will see. Sorry for removing your witness vote after such a short time, I will, based on your splendid discourse here, re-instate it.
Told you I was flighty ;O)
I very much appreciate it! I also realize how providing clear criteria would make this appear more thought through and also make the whole situation more clear and not look as uncertain.
But the intention is for it to buy time for such conversations to take place without any fear of sudden irreversible actions being done.
In any case, I look more forward to getting to know what future plans Steemit Inc and Tron have come together to find. I am an optimist at heart and do think that we can turn all of this into strength going forward. I have never seen this many witnesses get active as has happened following the acquisition news. Nor have I seen as many users participate in witness voting and conversation on the fundamentals of what we want this blockchain to be. And that is promising to me of a community that cares deeply about thsi chain.
Yes, I understand that groupthink can be an issue. Which is why these conversations now with the rest of the userbase is so important.
I much appreciate that you put trust in me and my team. I'm here for the long-game with Steem and will do my best to see it succeed.
Thanks for answering all the questions in the calm and respectful way that you have, man.