While simple means of distributing stake are probably relatively simple to discern, there are more complex means that can be undertaken. There are also other mechanisms besides distribution to many accounts. Goldman Sachs, for example.

You are not insincere in your revolutionary fervor, nor do I necessarily disagree with many of your principles, statements, and desires. I am fairly confident that Steem is better off presently than it would be after even an enlightened fork by extraordinarly competent devs, if only because of the optics to investors and the furor that the community would undergo.

Lastly, while you may think it's so, it's impossible to state with confidence that @ned has purposely failed the community. He certainly has made mistakes, but I am unprepared to say he has intentionally failed to do what he thought was best.

Call me Pollyanna. We spoke once regarding some concerns I had raised (offchain) and he made representations to me that he later fulfilled. I can't fault him for that, and given my tiny stake and often stated disinterest in stake, he had no financial interest in doing so.

The only reasons he could have had for doing so would be integrity, or recruiting me as a useful idiot. I don't know how useful I am, or that he could be very interested in such machiavellian manipulations.

I also am certain that there are things that @ned can compromise on that may meet the needs of the community, but I am not certain he can stop the powerdown given the legal environment. Perhaps both sides can find ways to work together to build a better blockchain anyway.

I sure hope so!