I think is more acurate to say, after he helped the chain with his own stake for 4 years he decided to move on and sell his shares to someone else who may take a different approach with the privately attained stake.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Well, yeah, except for those empty promises that are now proven lies.
Well, yeah, except for
Those empty promises that
Are now proven lies.
- freebornangel
I'm a bot. I detect haiku.
"Promises" ...... promises that Justin Sun didn't make.
Like I said, I get where some of these responses are coming from but the fact is if its not legally binding then there isn't much ground to stand on for forking a mans stake who used his own funds to purchase said stake.
He's been free to transfer it, power it down, or burn for several days.
That doesn't excuse the fact it got soft forked.
Do you expect him to just trust those who soft forked it to not do it again?
It would be foolish of him to do so. He likely needs some sort of insurance that gntds. his stake won't be forked again. A public notice from those who did like @tamiil suggested would be a nice step in the right direction.
Once he starts an operation it takes a hard fork to stop/reverse it.
He is, and has been for days, free to do as he pleases with his funds.
The sf was used to get dialog, it has served its purpose.
No guarantees in crypto outside the code.
This is why becoming known as a liar tends to precede folks with the reputation of lying.
I call B.S. on that .....
The man is rich and has other investments to tend to. It was only days between the "A.M.A." and the secret metting between 65(?) steemians who thought it was a good idea to implement a soft fork on an man with a vast amount of resources and funds. The softfork was a foolish idea that got all this mess started.
The coming in like a wrecking ball with token swaps and ending the chain, then voting with nonvoting stake in tron, got this started.
Then doubling down with exchange stake just proved the assumptions right.
The witness done right by us.
We won by inches.
Regardless, done is done.
We only want to move ahead, now.
When smteees!, and tranquility?
There are several video recordings of them acknowledging that the stake was intended to be non-voting and spent on development. Making that statement does hold legal obligations.
And you can't buy a stolen car and expect to keep it after the police come to your door. Justin Sun may not have known about the obligations put on the stake, but those obligations were made by the CEO and CTO of Steemit Inc., which means that Steemit Inc., which is the actual holder of the stake continues obligated to fulfill the statements.
DISCLAIMER
Steemit Inc. (The “Company”), is a private company that helps develop the open-source software that powers steemit.com, including steemd. The Company may own various digital assets, including, without limitation, quantities of cryptocurrencies such as STEEM. These assets are the sole property of the Company. Further, the Company’s mission, vision, goals, statements, actions, and core values do not constitute a contract, commitment, obligation, or other duty to any person, company or cryptocurrency network user and are subject to change at any time.
Source: https://steemitwallet.com/about.html
Outlining and speaking about what their then current plans were doesn't mean plans don't change.
To date I have seen 0 legal proof the Steemit Stake wasn't privately owned. Your comment hasn't changed that fact.
But was that disclaimer done after the fact or before? Ned has been recorded in interviews talking about the purpose of the stake, and that disclaimer seems like a direct response to public opinion regarding previous statements made on the stake.
To be honest I'm not sure. I know if I was a witnesses I would be doing a number of things to garner support.
(1) I would search out and provide any legal proof the Steemit Stake isn't private.
(2) I would compile all promises made by NED in regards to the Steemit INC. stake
(3) I would find adequate proof that the disclaimer is after the fact of this issue at hand.
(4) I would provide all the above in a single post and referance it everytime a topic like this comes up.
Its the legal aspect that truely matters here, not promises that aren't legaly binding. If there isn't enough legal proof the Steemit INC. stake isn't privately owned then its privately owned regardless of if promises were made or not. Its the job of those saying Ned's Steemit stake isn't private to provide evidance to support those claims.
Wrong. Ned had his own [substantial] personal stake held in his own personal account(s). So did Dan. But the STEEM held in Steemit accounts was something else entirely. It was meant to develop the ecosystem, and much of the community participated with that in mind. Many people bought stake, powered up, and invested their time with that understanding. I personally powered up more STEEM after this understanding was reaffirmed by Ned late last year. Otherwise I was prepared to dump. The Steemit stake is CLEARLY encumbered with an obligation to the community.
Having said that, I believe there is room for a compromise that would ensure Steem has the decentralization and development funding it needs going forward, while still enabling Justin to make a huge return on investment.
Not wrong .... Its Ned's business where he holds his personal stake. Many others here have their stake in multiple accounts as well. There's only one type of stake in this situation ....... that's Ned's (now Justin Sun's) personal stake.
As I said in my opening statement. I think there's a large group of people being unreasonable due to the false narative that the Steemit INC. stake isn't privately owned. If you have a legal document stating otherwise I'll gladly reconsider my position on the issue.
Justin Sun shouldn't be stronged armed to spend his stake on the development of the chain. It should be his choice to do so or not just like its your choice to spend yours on the chain or not.
Are the ones asking him to hand over his funds willing to do the same with their own funds? If not they shouldn't be demanding someone else does.
The Steemit Stake is encumbered by social contract. Maybe you don't know the history. Briefly:
From an early stage, the community was understandably concerned about Steemit's large, ninja-mined stake and many were reluctant to invest their resources in the platform. In order to mitigate concerns and attract maximum participation by new and existing users/stakeholders, Ned assured the community that the Steemit stake would be used only for development purposes and would be diluted over time for greater decentralization. He repeated this many times in many public venues, and it came to be considered a social contract between Steemit and the community.
Many (if not the the vast majority) of Steem ecosystem participants factored this social contract into their decisions about whether to buy and power up STEEM (and how much), whether to invest their valuable time blogging/commenting/curating, whether to run witnesses, develop dApps, etc. Many would not have engaged in these activities without the social contract. It is clear that the stake Justin Sun now controls as a result of purchasing Steemit Inc is encumbered by this social contract.
The bottom line is that Ned has put both Justin Sun and the community in a very difficult position. Unless, of course, Justin knew these details. Either way, the only way out will be some kind of compromise. That's what civilized people do when their strongly-held positions are at odds. What do you propose instead, a fight to the death?
This gave me a chuckle. I touched on my opinion on everything else you wrote already in my various comments so I will just address your line above.
I purpose a rework of how witnesses are voted in. I always said 30 votes was too much ..... With less votes per account Justin Sun or anyone with a significant amount of power wouldn't be able to over take the top witness spots. With less votes, Steemians will have to be more picky about who they think deserves a witness vote. The witnesses would also have to work harder to attain a vote due to votes being less plentiful, which in turn will help better the chain.
Edit: Here's a decent system that's allot better then the current...
https://steemit.com/steem/@holoz0r/changing-the-witness-voting-system-by-introducing-witness-downvotes-could-this-work