RE: Progress being made
Agree wrt the trust issue. Not so much agree wrt the process proposed. In current situation with both sides not having enough witnesses to make chances to the blockchain, its time to come to agreements. Some high(er) SP holders are stating they plan to keep the equilibrium anyway, so listen to these users who - like witnesses - also represent a voice from the community ar large.
IMHO, we shall not lock the funds of Steemit Inc and we need to re-assure Justin/TRON we will not do.
We shall come to some agreement with TRON and Justin that TRON/Justin will invest in building out Steem. In my honest opinion, this doesn't have to be financed directly from the Steemit Inc Steem stake/wallet. The money may come from anywhere; Costs to develop the Steem eco system is mostly in FIAT currency anyway and just having the Steem Wallet of Steemit Inc as the source of income to fund all expenses seems a risk to me; What if Steem value goes down in dollar value as it is been doing the last few years?
Somehow we need to make sure, in writing, in contracts, in mutual agreed lockup funds (this can be in a trust fund for instance) the intentions of TRON and Justin wrt Steem and Steemit.com are verifiable, legal and eventually will be honoured.
We don't need contracts that may or may not be binding in insertrandomcountry
We have our blockchain with its own governance, and we decide together what the law it.
All fine, but will the witnesses also raise money for development of the ecosystem? At some point the Steem stake of Steemit INC is finished, and then? Bringing a chain into a bright future costs a lot of resources, and resources are being paid in the normal fiat world. Enough fiat shall be available to give Steem a future without becoming irrelevant at some point in time. I didn't see ANY proof so far the 'community' can handle the tasks required. We definitely need some form of organisation for that, wether that be one or more groups of people, project teams, or even better, companies, like Steemit Inc is a company. Decentralisation sounds great, but I don't know of any decentralised product that made it to the top without using (more or less) centralised planning and execution.
Whether contracts will be used, or some form of trust fund, or whatever other form to safeguard investments into the development of the Steem eco-system, it all ok for me.
We have the SPS for future funding. And of course there need to be businesses involved in the ecosystem, profitable ones at best ;)
When SPS is the way to go, fine by me.
BUT, we need to start talking with Justin/Roy/TRON to come to solutions which are good for Steem and at the same time good for TRON Foundation (the owners of Steemit Inc). So far, we (our witnesses) didn't really talk, we made demands while we dont have the control over the chain. Some of our spokespeople seem to be ok, but the rest sounds like children in these meetings. Also, am very unhappy with the fact many witnesses dont come forward in the TRON meetings (as well as our Town Halls) to add to the conversation, they keep quite and bitch in the chat channels. Very un-constructive.
I understand that a lot of people want a compromise to be found asap. I respectfully disagree, for my part I'm happy that our representatives don't give in with promises they are not authorized to give.
For me personally, the only way forward is giving control of the chain back and acknowledging that the funds are not his personal property. And a lot of the other big stakeholders see it the same way.
I belong to the group of people who first like to explore if a win/win is possible by means of acting professional, approach TRON with a business mind, stop bitching and hate speak. If we can't come to an agreement, we can always take more drastic steps.
Bit off topic but still: Interestingly, the large stakeholder will only have real value in hand, as long as many small stakeholders are part of the community. For small stakeholders it is much easier to step away from whatever service on the Steem blockchain, and start spending their time somewhere else. Every large stakeholder shall keep that in mind. The community is build by the small stakeholders, while the large stakeholders benefit from what the small stakeholders are building. Surely I paint it all a bit black/white while the world is always grey, but I simply like to point out the other problems we have, and the only way to survive and grow is for all community members to be involved together in one or the other way and everybody is willing to support decisions that is good for all of us and stay away from personal reasons.
This also applies to what deal we shall make with TRON! The small stakeholders opinions shall be taken into account as well, even when they may be different to the views of the large stakeholders.
Of course all voices have to be heard. I didn't see feasible suggestions for win-win scenarios yet though. As long as Tron doesn't accept the sovereignty of the community I don't see anything we can offer. When they do that, a discussion in the community can start. But right now we can only wait and see if he is willing to compromise on the stance that it is his personal stake.
I think we know too little about what TRON is willing to do, before we can even discuss a good win/win agreement. Details matter when we want to seek common ground. I think we shall sit at the table with TRON (maybe Roy, not Justin) and play a lot of 'What If' scenarios, or at least let TRON inform us their position when we take such and such position; For many different scenarios. Sure, nothing agreed at the table. Discussions at home with the rest, the Steem community to see what their opinions are, and then next round, same thing, more talks, more What Ifs, back to community and so on and so fort, until we can make an agreement, or we decide to walk away.
All this can start before TRON takes an action wrt Steemit Inc owned Steem stake. Sure, it would be nice if TRON beforehand states it'll not sell it, but I don't think they will do that. If I was TRON CEO, I wouldn't give up this major card in hand that easy. He may think: Steem community has more to loose than TRON and him personally. And I think that may be right so.
I personally think that what @pharesim proposed or some variant of it is very much win-win, as I pointed out in my own reply.
Once the ninja-mined stake (which I point out elsewhere, he paid very little for anyway) is redevoted to ecosystem development and taken off the table, a few things happen:
Rather, by focusing narrowly on the stake (even to the extent of lying to exchanges in order to trick them into helping him remove it, before even seeking to engage with witnesses or stakeholders on the matter, or responding to communications) is:
It isn't too late for a different course, but every day that goes by with the present "our funds" approach, more damage is being done to everyone (lose-lose).
I would agree on that point. As a large-ish stakeholder I have large votes when it comes to that but I also seek to listen and learn from everyone regardless of stake. Mostly in these discussions I don't pay any attention to it.
I've seen numbers going around of 350k Dollar to 10M US Dollar TRON Foundation paid for Steemit Inc. I have no clue if one of these numbers are close to the truth. If it is to the higher end of this range, than I can imagine cash flow is an topic for TRON/Justin. Cash flow is the most important element of running a business. With all the funds in SPS, their is no cash flow other than whatever is released each time period to fund the activities of Steem Ecosystem development, the tasks executed by Steemit inc in last 4 to 5 years. If cash flow is one of the primary reasons for Justin to want to sell (part of) the Steemit Inc stake asap, then we may be able to work this into a deal/agreement. In my view, nothing is black/white, and I can';t imagine this to be the case for our witnesses and higher SP holders as well. To form an agreement, we need to talks, the right topics discussed, not only high level, but in-depth. This can only be done when both parties are willing to do so. I would like to see the Steem community to take this onboard, start to talk indepth sitting at the table with TRON. If need be meet eachother in person. Nothing shall be agreed at the table, as usually in business, just explore a whole set of possible solutions, understand the true drivers of the other party, discover where there is room to move closer together. The 'What If' shall be played for many different 'What If's'.
All this can happen while we are in the situation today. We dont need an action from Justin/TRONs side, nor we need one from our side.
Sure, Justin made various remarks and wrote various posts he never should've done. Totally not business-like; Full of emotions, Agitating the other party a lot. But Roy seems to be much calmer and therefore easier to talk with staying civil. Maybe we shall address Roy, sit with him at the table. Leave Justin out of the sessions.
And sure, when we dont progress, Justin may incur losses, but we as a community do so as well: loose-loose as you stated. I can't imagine Justin would go for the loose-loose, but then again, he is a business person driven by emotions, hence he can make unexpected moves imho. Could for instance walk away from Steem and Steemit Inc. If that is a loss; I do think so, since the chance Steemit Inc goes belly up is not unreal. And even when Steemit Inc can progress, with the little developers they have of which the main once stepped away, will we be delivered what we need in time before Steem is becoming irrelevant.
Cool: KUDOS! :)
Correct, it could come from SPS or some other on-chain governance system.
There is no other practical way for the Steem community to hold someone to their obligations, even if it were someone who, unlike Justin, had any reputation for or track record of honest and reliable dealings.
We have that, using on-chain governance. I would invite Justin to embrace it instead of working to undermine it.
BTW, a blockchain can not sign a contract. There are good reasons why blockchains create their own governance and enforcement mechanisms.
Justin came to us (us meaning the blockchain, not Steemit Inc) uninvited. It is up to him to respect and embrace the values and institutions of the community that he is seeking to join. As long as he refuses to do so and, instead, acts like he bought a blockchain or community (which he can not and did not) and makes demands, while working to undermine those values and institutions through manipulation, cheating, trickery, and deceit, the community will continue to reject him.
Let the above statement etch itself into every fiber of your being!
Agree that the chain itself shall be decentralised as much as possible. I also understand all laws if the blockchain is to be implemented at the blockchain, as much as possible. However, outside the blockchain world, instruments exist that can be looked at as well to safeguard future investments into the blockchain itself. I'm simply stating that we shall have a very open mind and work to a mutual acceptable solution, even if this means to use instruments outside the blockchain. Keep in mind: the 'community' trusted Steemit Inc with their stake, without any enforcement in the chain itself. I would never have done that; But the 'community' did... Note the way I write community. Imho the top 20 witnesses are not speaking on behalf of the community at large. The system we have is skewed to a few high value SP holders. Somehow we need to tackle that problem as well. Although that problem may seem to be not relevant for this post, I personally want to see all the issues we have on our chain to be addressed and resolved in any roadmap plan for the Steem Ecosystem.
No this is false. There very much was enforcement, although I can understand how it might not be so apparent to newer or smaller stakeholders who were not a part of or well informed about Steem's history.
The stake remained transparent in the steemit account (and associated accounts) for the specific reason that it would then be subject to community oversight. Around a year or two ago when there was some consideration (albeit embryonic) about forking to exert more direct control over that stake due to lack of confidence in Steemit and Ned, Ned starting hiding it. This, in fact, made it more likely for a fork to occur, because failing to fork would eliminate on-chain governance over the ninja-mined stake. For that reason, Ned was convinced to stop hiding it and to leave it in a transparent powered-up stake, and at the same time stakeholders considering a fork backed away since the transparency and oversight could be retained without one. In some cases this was even a specific quid-pro-quo offered by some of the stakeholders and witnesses, though I personally never did such a thing.
In fact there has always been a degree of stakeholder control over that stake, and Justin will have to understand and respect this if he wants to gain support from Steem and its stakeholders.
I would imagine that this history and specific events (some of which documented on the blockchain and elsewhere) regarding the designated purpose, practices, and encumbrances of the ninja-mined stake should have been disclosed to Justin when negotiation for the purchase of Steemit Inc, since it certainly is relevant information about the company he was buying. If it was not that would be an issue for Ned and Justin to work out.
All that being said, I'm not 100% opposed to creating some sort of foundation or trust that could handle custody of the stake and enforce rules over its use, but frankly that seems a lot more complicated and time consuming to me than on-chain governance, to ultimately accomplish much the same thing (the stake used for the development of the ecosystem).
Thanks for the explanation of the Steemit Inc Steem stake and the history; Greatly appreciated. I do wonder if Justin and Roy knows this.
I think it'll be time to start preparing session with TRON, with documents and all.
I do wonder why we don't have a service (eg Website) where we store all this important type of information in a more centralised fashion. That would've helped so much in making things transparent, not only to the Steem community, but also to outsiders, like TRON, exchanges and even investors in Steem and Steem content creators.
I do not know. However, I do have it on good authority they got an enormous discount relative to the value of the stake, not to mention the other company assets.
So either they knew some reasons for that enormous discount (most likely the history and community encumbrances on the stake), or if they thought they were buying simple stake free and clear (again, plus all the other assets), they were getting a deal that was "too good to be true" and still should have been very suspicious IMO.