Ok trivial was the wrong choice of words...completely. The greatest issue is communication and handling. My limitations around the technical side of things are abundantly clear. I think it's fair to say that the majority of people using steem are in the same boat. I hope what comes out of this is not more disenfranchisement but an acknowledgment that we can do better together and have every opportunity to address issues and strengthen our unity of purpose.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I do not understand US law in the slightest, I'm not even sure what a security is.....how it relates to crypto is a complete mystery to me. If mined SP is going to be considered a security, I have no clue what the implications are for those that mined it. What I do know is that some of them worked very hard to get there and have behaved with integrity for steem and steemit as far as I know. Ultimately I see any outside interference from governments (who are of course the architects of most of the world's ills) as uneccessary and counter-productive. If there is an issue, we should handle it as a community.
That brings me to your hard fork proposal. It's a perfectly reasonable suggestion. If enough people form a consensus to begin a new network, so be it. There are several precedents. But how do you do a fair distribution? Who controls the dev stake? How do you ensure that everyone already involved gets a fair stake without recreating the previous issues.....not all whales have been bad and steem wouldn't even exist without some of them.
It's a sorry state of affairs that is seems to have come to this. I have raised concerns over the steemit premine several times. My biggest concern has always been that. On the new chain, I think it is imperative to do an analysis on how much premined accounts have taken out so that those that got into this with the best intentions, who have not cashed out or are founders (especially ned and dan) are compensated. I don't know yet whether I would support a fork or not, it rather depends on how it is dealt with, how fair I perceive the distribution to be, how well looked after the founders are etc. I am certainly not against examining the possibility, especially if at the same time we can address legal issues, flaws resulting from distribution and technical aspects all at the same time.
The utility of steem and the community should be the greatest concern for us all.
>got into this with best intentions > DanHHAHHA, Ever wonder how almost everyone talking positively about Dan have a vested interest in one or more of his projects, or just a complete newbie who thinks Dan , the anarcho capitalist, aiming to secure life and liberty for all, will "revolutionize" the finance and tech sector. Just lol
Oh, and EOS is a complete joke as well
on his "rebuttal" against Vitalik's criticisms of EOS :
Not even exaggerating when I call him a shameless conman, people outside of steemit are literally laughing at the platform (and eos) and its founders.
Its a nice and innovative concept, but run by some really shitty people
EOS sounds like just another shady scam by a bunch of shady nerds, just like steemit (let a few insiders in first, let insiders build power/influence/vests, then let the general public in so those same few insiders can use and abuse the noobies for their own profit/gain while convincing said noobies they are part of something special that may make them rich some day)....
No thanks. I think I'd rather risk any potential investments I may make with the upcoming independent steem fork (free from Stinc) - Calibrae