I don't think the secret soft-fork was "defensive".
Would you think it's a "defensive" action if someone take your assets you bought at millions of dollars?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't think the secret soft-fork was "defensive".
Would you think it's a "defensive" action if someone take your assets you bought at millions of dollars?
No I would think it was an "offensive" action if "someone takes [your] assets".
The difference is I don't believe any assets were "taken", they were placed in limbo to allow discussion.
Well, you cannot legally place something that doesn't belong to you in limbo either. It is called the act of taking hostage.
IANAL so can't speak to the legality of the situation. I wouldn't have necessarily done the same thing. I'm sure there are ways it could have been dealt with better. Perhaps an unbiased third party should have been given control while the options were able to be discussed. In short I haven't thought about it enough to give you a detailed response.
I wanted to reply to @tabris because I was a previous sponsor of Steemhunt. Most people will rage and shout accusations. I felt I could respond in a constructive manner.
@tabris I think the issue is, the Steemit Inc Genesis Stake did not belong to @ned as a personal asset to sell. The initial fork was to insure the funds were used properly. Justin may have bought them with his own money, but they weren't @ned's to sell in the first place.