I personally can't agree with your statement, because all I see Justin wanting to do at the moment is lower the Power Down time to 3 Days, which would break the post rewards system, and removing down-votes, which I know you (and myself) are very fond of. I think down-votes have really cleaned this place up.
Of course, I am just a small fish, but I will not be committing to any witness voting that benefits or doesn't benefit Justin. I will vote for what I feel is right from my gut.
Thanks for sharing your opinion though.
~ @CADawg
I personally also don't support those changes either, especially as a strong proponent of the EIP which I had tried to push for almost 2 years, not constantly of course.
I took him asking for safe passage out to mean under the current rules as the post itself made no mention of changing rules, although they were brought up before.
Notwithstanding, I believe upholding property rights and defending our already besmirched DPOS consensus system is more important than trying to prevent a dysfunctional set of post voting and rewarding rules.
In other words, the reputation that you can freely access and participate with your stake as long as you control the private keys on our chain (which we already compromised with the SF), is worth defending even if I think the threat is malicious, overwhelming and imminent, and I don't in this case.
Fair enough.
With regards to the safe passage for his assets, I have personal concerns. I do believe the stake was bought at a discount (probably because of the connotations), and since he's not buying from exchanges (like the rest of us), I feel StInc should still be held to their obligations, whether through code or contract (although I'm more of a one for code to be fair). If he had have bought it off exchanges and used it to vote, I would have no objection to it whatsoever. I will disregard the exchanges for the moment, because we can guess if
22.2was never enacted, he wouldn't have needed to do that. Personally, I'd like to see a bit of goodwill from custom_JSun (mind the pun) in the form of actions, because his words don't mean all that much now. I also believe he is trying to sell it as we speak, because Dan has already revealed that he has been approached.Maybe his stake should be treated as equal, but I still believe it is special. Even if it were put through the exchanges books at a fair price, that would have been fair, but the "deal" comes with the company.
Really, Ned is probably to blame for a lot of this mess. He doesn't want to talk to the community anymore, and when he did, he was definitely talking at us rather than to us.
At this point, I don't know if I just wrote a crappy wall of text, let's find out 😛.
Kind regards,
CA
As to the Inc stake, I agree that obligations are assumed by the company irrespective of a change in board or shareholder composition.
So the issue is whether the stake was bound by promises to be 1. non voting in perpetuity, and 2. to be used for the sole purpose of Steem blockchain development for perpetuity, or until depletion; and if so was it right for witnesses to break ordinary DPOS rules to freeze them.
I have no doubt some general representations were made at least in the early years regarding certain restrictions to the use of that stake. I also have no doubt that some community members may not have built value and/or invested but for those representation. I'd even go so far as to say there was at least some level of deliberate misleading conduct on the part of Ned, of whom I'm not a fan.
However, overall I feel those representations were too vague, inconsistent and dynamic to form a binding agreement over obligations of such magnitude. I also don't believe the reliances made on them were sufficient, and there exists a strong argument that the community members and ex Inc employees acquiesced when Inc's attitude shifted to clearly state they were the sole proprietors of that stake. Either way, this case is far too murky for me to feel comfortable enough to support witnesses undermining DPOS consensus rules and directly intervening to freeze that stake. In crypto, general consensus rules (those that don't require manual intervention) are almost sacrosanct and operations should not be suspended for contentious cases.
Put another way: In terms of property rights, do I feel on the weight of the evidence there is such an overwhelming case for anyone else having a clear and direct superior claim over the actual private key owner of the stake that I'm willing to suspend the operation of ordinary DPOS consensus rules to directly have witnesses freeze/seize those assets without the private key owner's knowledge and/or consent? The answer here for me is a clear no, and my witness votes will reflect that. I'm specifically talking about this particular case, rather than a general rule.
Do I believe there's at least a weak but realistic case? Yes. But not one that's anywhere near worth directly intervening and undermining ordinary DPOS operations. I'm not a 'code is law' maximalist. But In a trustless system, you need to trust the system more. The witnesses flinched way too early on this one.
It may feel satisfying or even cathartic in certain ways and I can understand that sentiment, but this was not the right move and I fear it has done our chain considerable damage in reputation loss.
Your point of view is interesting, and you make some very valid points. Although, I'm still going to stick with my views.
@CADawg Out. 😄✋
|
|
🎤