Why are you calling Justin’s purchased stake encumbered property? There is zero legal (meaning signed and witnessed by all involved parties in the presence of an attorney) basis for this whatsoever. None. Zilch. Nada.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It could be considered to be a verbal contract, but even in that case, I think the encumbrance would lie on Ned, who is the one who made the promises. He certainly did not do them as an "official representative" of Steemit Inc, as that would have required formality, as you say.
Therefore, even in that case, the strings would be attached to the proceeds of the sale, and Ned should dedicate them to development. Justin just paid good money for his STEEM like every other investor.
4 years of not voting is another very important part of the puzzle. This sets an expectation. All of this contribute to a contractual agreement especially as it is obvious this dramatically affects everyone who invests time, money or development effort into Steem.
But that Steem did have a "freeze switch" coded into the chain, hence why it was relatively easy to activate. But I do agree we shouldn't have. The way Justin retaliated is pretty out there though and has put the whole chain in jeopardy.
Contracts are not just pretty pieces of paper drafted by lawyers and signed in swanky offices.
Follow @apshamilton and you'll see more than I'll tap out here on my phone.
So, are you saying it is OK for a corporation to lie to us because lawyers?
As a smart girl, you know that men lie and that there is no legal obligation.
Sadly, Steemian babies don't understand