Why is it inportant that the promise was legal? That's what I am not understanding here. If the promise was legal then the correct action would be taking them to court.
Ned made a social obligation to the steem community to use the ninja mined funds for development reasons. As long as that contract is broken, whether it was legally binding or not, I dont see why the witnesses have any obligation to recognize the ninja mined funds.
Basically there is no legal defence or offence for anything going on here atm. Justin is free to use his steem for what ever reasons he pleases, and the witnesses are free to block his steem for what ever reason they wish. Its all just people deciding whether or not to hold up their own end of the "social contracts".
Thank you for your input.
The term "social contract" is being used in very different meanings, so making a clear definition is important first step.
For example, some 22.2 community asked Justin to sue Ned. To do that, you need legal evidence, not "social contract" - it is basically hearsay at best.
And if it is not legal or official, I found it not very convincing that the new buyer should succeed such "social contract".
Judging from what I have read so far, the "evidence" suggested by 22.2 community seems to be mere roadmap/plan for several years ago or personal statements on the web, which is far from any legally binding evidence. At best, Ned or Dan who made statememts may be responsible.
I don't find the term social contract useful, and don't recall why you began using it. Regardless of it's etymology, what does matter is what these assertions by community members mean in reality to Steem.
During the last 4 years, that stake has been stated to not be applicable to governance, and it has not been. I has been claimed to be earmarked for development, and it has been. Investors plunked down money to buy Steem based on these facts.
If those investors now are harmed because the corporation that made these statements and took these actions has completely renounced those policies, then I reckon they have a cause for action to hold Stinc's owner(s) accountable for that harm.
Certainly those whose funds have been seized by exchanges and used to govern the Steem blockchain have cause to seek remedy at law.
It is notable that the language we use on our posts and comments isn't necessary defined the same in those environments as it is in court. Neither are certain terms useful in certain contexts, like 'social contract' in a court of law.
Whether or not @ned, @justinsunsteemit,@dantheman, or @steemit have made social, or other contracts, via their written statements really isn't something we can settle here. What we can be sure of is that if we don't restore community consensus to Steem we'll lose Steem altogether, and those questions will be settled by those injured parties, or litigated instead, to answer them.
I don't think breaking laws should be the tipping point here. Nobody is threatening to break the law against Justin.
Its just internal politics, nobody here is any more then socially obligated to do anything with their power. Whether thats installing a sockpuppet army, or choosing to ignore somebodies dirty money.
It sucks that Justin is facing the fall out from this, and he should absolutely be taking Ned into court. But still, if the new leader is not going to follow through with the promises of the old, then its just dirty money at this point and I don't see why the community should be obligated to accept it.