But it is against my belief and values to tamper with someone else account and assets.
With the same logic, would you have supported the HF9, which recovered stoled funds? Source
From a purely idealistic PoV, I can understand your stance. But the real world simply isn't idealistic.
There is a big difference between:
stake on accounts belonging to Steemit Inc, the company that unfairly mined STEEM in the past and made social contracts to only use those funds for the Steem ecosystem
and every other account.
With your logic, ever since HF9, people could have lost trust in Witnesses controlling the stake, but thinking that would be absurd.
Same goes for the SF 222. It was a highly targeted security measure, to make sure that those funds, promised to be used for Steem, are also going to be used that way. Just because Ned sold his company, those social contracts are NOT simply nullified.
People invested time & money on here, based on those promises given. And, we, the stakeholders that are voting for the SF 222, are now demanding that those promised funds are not just going away, potentially harming the whole ecosystem; but are going to be used for Steem - however that may look like.
Also, most STEEM that was sold, was actually from those early days, which is also a reason why the STEEM price tanked harder than most others. Empty promises & hard sells from the company who created the software.
Anyway, I respect your stance, but I disagree with it.
I don't think the HF9 case is comparable, it was an actual theft. With the SiNMS, it was an unfair acquisition during genesis, a time where no one really cared about it and then it went on "accepted" during 4 years. By accepted, I mean no one made a SF/HF against it. But maybe there are things I don't fully understand yet due to joining the platform more recently.
I do think that dealing with the SiNMS is a good thing for the platform but I guess it's about timing and I'm looking forward finding a better way to handle it.
Update: that could have been negotiated, you chose to force his hand.
You can't negotiate, if you've got no leverage. Steemit Inc has (and always had) enough stake to vote in their our witnesses (30 accounts on 1 server even) and give everyone a big F. All of this should have been done earlier obviously, enforce it by code so the centralised stake can't be maliciously abused, but people had trust in Ned - mistakenly.
Due to the SF, we've got leverage now. There are always extremists on both sides, but the majority of people who are in favour of the softfork also want this relation between Tron & Steem to be positive.
However, we will not accept for Steem to be eaten up by anybody, as if we were in agar.io. You might call this FUD, I call it realistic risk assessment.
but the majority of people who are in favour of the softfork also want this relation between Tron & Steem to be positive
We'll have to see how that goes now.
Personally I have no bias if Steem and Tron each go their way or if they will collaborate closely. I see enough supporters of both scenarios, but what I don't like a bit is the precedent you have set and messing with property, regardless of its history. So yeah, when it comes to property I guess I'm an extremist.
What about seeing the stake as the community's property?
I'm not arguing one way or the other. But the ninja-mined stake is worth anything at all due to the community's efforts. Should it not be considered the community's property then?
If you lend me money, with the expectation to be paid back later, but I simply give it away, then I'm good, because you could have demanded to be paid back earlier.
I am not taking sides only pointing out that Justin can simply run his own version with his stake intact. It's up to everyone here which version of steem has value.. I'm not a fan of our consensus witnesses and think they act very unprofessional and can't hack it anywhere else in the world of business so I'm more than open to supporting what may be a scumbag that can actually create something valuable with the tech..
Our steem team has floundered, whined, and can't see the forest for the trees.. Why even bother having a conversation with wolf he is like the most duplicitous politically motivated ass clown on steem.
God, I'm really trying to move on from the subject! 😄
My opinion hasn't changed regarding property and the unnecessary use of force, although I see many attempts to make it right-er (as in justifiable) post factum.
Time will tell, in the meantime it's nice to see others at least questioning the council of freedom and their less than admirable track record.. Mr. Wolf muted me long ago as I was quite vocal in my opposition of his rise to power.. It went against our collective botter judgement.. 🤖 Have to wonder what possessed such an almighty force to mute lil ol having an opinion me.. Wanker
"stake on accounts belonging to Steemit Inc, the company that unfairly mined STEEM in the past and made social contracts to only use those funds for the Steem ecosystem"
Can you show me that contract please @therealwolf ?
Decentralizing Stake
The Steemit, Inc.-controlled primary account, @steemit, which holds approximately 41% of the platform’s Steem Power, will be gradually divested of its holdings in an effort to increase promotion and development of the platform, and this distribution shall further the platform’s security through decentralization of voting power.
Several methods will be employed, including and not limited to: funding the continued research and development of steemit.com, the Steem Blockchain’s first and best application, promoting and publicizing the Steem Blockchain and features, hosting highly available services for platform users, sponsoring conferences and community gatherings, and sponsoring undertakings to build applications and increase user adoption across the entire ecosystem.
This will likely be a multi-year process, but is included in this 2017 Roadmap for the sake of clarity and understanding surrounding our organization’s plans and goals. We have several very large initiatives currently in research serving this goal, and the community should expect further announcements later in the year regarding our firm plans as it yields fruit.
Ultimately, the goal is to harmoniously align the interests of all participants across the entire spectrum of people using and trading in STEEM.
Here is a video where the social contract is mentioned:
As far as I'm aware, nothing that you've presented is legally binding (wouldn't hold up as a legal contract in court). So, you're essentially admitting that you were putting your trust in Ned that he'd hold true to his words, am I right?
And that justifies sucking all the power away from the new owner of those Steem that he was holding when he made that "social contract", correct?
The way I see it, there's all kinds of risk coming into play with this choice to soft-fork away Steemit's influence on the chain, the biggest of which may not even be the potential legal issues. Steem may never be able to recover from the negative perception of what can easily be perceived as randomly deciding to delete the largest holder's stake. Who would want to invest into that?
However, there are potential risk that backup Witnesses are being pushed upwards towards the Top20 position, effectively rendering the Softfork useless.
Can you explain what you mean here? As long as the majority of witnesses support it (or don't), the longest chain will win. Micro forks may happen, but the longest chain will win which will exclude (or include) a transaction that is currently being blocked based on the majority of the elected witnesses. That's my understanding today, anyway.
I'm curious, do you think the Townhall meeting would have happened if the witnesses had done nothing?
What I was thinking is that non-SF backup witnesses could be somehow pushed up to the top 20.
As for the Townhall, we haven’t tried to make it or a similar meeting happen before deciding on the SF have we? We could have all compiled the SF, request for a friendly meeting and stand ready for activation. And by request I mean an en masse campaign to reach out to Justin on major platforms he is on. The SF surely did make it happen fast
You have my continued support, @quochuy. All witnesses which installed 22.2 have lost my support. They have broken the trust of the chain in my opinion.
The existential threat is not gone. A billionaire can still buy a majority stake on the exchanges. What was/is needed is a solution that will affect all accounts and not targeted ones.
Some ideas have been put out there in some of my comments on the subject.
Why Now?
Because this is the first time that STEEM Witnesses, themselves, are threatened. If this BS narrative of protecting the chain were true then something would have been done when @ned was still with us.
We are seeing Jonny come lately self interests in action, not solutions.
I think I might actually be in agreement with you. I'm happy to see people questioning our consensus witnesses that were hand selected by an "anonymous" central controlling non participating in any other capacities stakeholder ... I'm fine with flushing these turds for a new bathroom..
We don't have any problem with Justin's stake, the problem is with Ned's stake. Ned sold stake that is not supposed to be sold.
Justin should solve the problem with Ned.
Philosophically and spiritually I agree, but technically and practically, I do not.
I still support you and am glad to hear your point of view.
In my opinion if Justin bought 70 million Steem on the open market, we would all be stinking up our pants now as he would have the full ability and moral authority to do as he pleases (I'm sure a lot of people would have dumped at the price spike).
Also, if Mr. Ned was to sell 70 million Steem on the open market, the price would crash and we would just be really, really sad. The torch was sold/passed to a more interesting and seemingly capable person. I think he is a bit of a wise guy in the mafia sense, but I'm glad the witnesses won't kindly bend over and are also dealing with this is a mafia manner.
Justin played the first hand like an asshole new boss. Now he is being shown who is boss. He isn't Steem's owner. He is Steemit's owner. Until he understands this and is willing to act accordingly, we won't let him play with his toys in our playground.
He isn't Steem's owner. He is Steemit's owner. Until he understands this and is willing to act accordingly, we won't let him play with his toys in our playground.
...okay, but Steemit has a Steem holding and that, presumably, is now HIS Steem holding. That's what he bought, what he forked (no pun intended) real cash over for. And because the amount that he now controls doesn't sit well with those who make a decent earning churning out new Steem as a top 20 witness, they've decided to delete the power away from his holdings to ensure that they maintain that position.
This is akin to taking all the shareholder rights away from the top holder in a publicly traded company, rendering him/ her powerless in company decisions. The problem with that scenario is that those rights are a contractual/ legal obligation between the company and shareholder as a percent ownership, dictated by number of shares held in said company.
The question is: does this apply to ownership of the Steem blockchain as a percent ownership of the entire float of Steem, with regards to voting rights?
That, I assume, would be how outsiders perceive the situation to work, regardless of if that is or isn't backed by the law. Which is why I point out that even if this doesn't lead to lawsuits, it will likely ruin Steem's image (assuming it can be ruined more than it already has been) to any potential future speculators/ investors.
You are thinking of Steem as shareholder equity. Steem is probably not.
His Steem Power was practically nulled, the Steem is still there.
How does converting Steem to Steem Power change cryptocurrency to share holder equity from a legal perspective? It doesn't. Further anyone can buy or earn Steem and convert it to Steem Power without actually agreeing to anything. If I make you an account, there is no TOS. There is definitely no TOS to shitpost.
His ability to convert has been hampered, but he stated himself he has no immediate plans, he also didn't publically ask for anything to be done except a meeting on March 6. I'm sure he consulted lawyers. Maybe he ca wait until then to actually declare some sort of lawsuit. But I doubt he will.
Some of the witnesses are barely known others don't live antwhere that can be brought to US justice. Crypto is barely regulated.
A lawsuit would be an expensive mess that would destroy the value of Steem. It makes no sense and serves the interest of neither party and any competent judge would recognize this.
With the same logic, would you have supported the HF9, which recovered stoled funds? Source
From a purely idealistic PoV, I can understand your stance. But the real world simply isn't idealistic.
There is a big difference between:
With your logic, ever since HF9, people could have lost trust in Witnesses controlling the stake, but thinking that would be absurd.
Same goes for the SF 222. It was a highly targeted security measure, to make sure that those funds, promised to be used for Steem, are also going to be used that way. Just because Ned sold his company, those social contracts are NOT simply nullified.
People invested time & money on here, based on those promises given. And, we, the stakeholders that are voting for the SF 222, are now demanding that those promised funds are not just going away, potentially harming the whole ecosystem; but are going to be used for Steem - however that may look like.
Also, most STEEM that was sold, was actually from those early days, which is also a reason why the STEEM price tanked harder than most others. Empty promises & hard sells from the company who created the software.
Anyway, I respect your stance, but I disagree with it.
Thanks for your reaction, I appreciate.
I don't think the HF9 case is comparable, it was an actual theft. With the SiNMS, it was an unfair acquisition during genesis, a time where no one really cared about it and then it went on "accepted" during 4 years. By accepted, I mean no one made a SF/HF against it. But maybe there are things I don't fully understand yet due to joining the platform more recently.
I do think that dealing with the SiNMS is a good thing for the platform but I guess it's about timing and I'm looking forward finding a better way to handle it.
stolen != purchased
This isn't about Justin Sun buying the stake. This is about Steemit Inc upholding their social contracts.
This is about the purchase... because you guys are effectively holding his stake hostage until you enforce your contract.
Update: that could have been negotiated, you chose to force his hand.
You can't negotiate, if you've got no leverage. Steemit Inc has (and always had) enough stake to vote in their our witnesses (30 accounts on 1 server even) and give everyone a big F. All of this should have been done earlier obviously, enforce it by code so the centralised stake can't be maliciously abused, but people had trust in Ned - mistakenly.
Due to the SF, we've got leverage now. There are always extremists on both sides, but the majority of people who are in favour of the softfork also want this relation between Tron & Steem to be positive.
However, we will not accept for Steem to be eaten up by anybody, as if we were in agar.io. You might call this FUD, I call it realistic risk assessment.
We'll have to see how that goes now.
Personally I have no bias if Steem and Tron each go their way or if they will collaborate closely. I see enough supporters of both scenarios, but what I don't like a bit is the precedent you have set and messing with property, regardless of its history. So yeah, when it comes to property I guess I'm an extremist.
What about seeing the stake as the community's property?
I'm not arguing one way or the other. But the ninja-mined stake is worth anything at all due to the community's efforts. Should it not be considered the community's property then?
It could have been seen that way and done something about it before it was sold, in my opinion.
Of course, some would argue it's still community's property, and if Sun doesn't like it, he should go to Ned and ask for his money back.
But here's when written contracts are more powerful than "understandings". Do you think he will do that? Should he do that? Do we want him to do that?
Or we just wanted him at the table in a negotiation where he will say anything we want to hear in order to see his stake released?
It should have been done earlier indeed. I didn't even realized it could done with a softfork before seing 22.2.
So with your logic:
If you lend me money, with the expectation to be paid back later, but I simply give it away, then I'm good, because you could have demanded to be paid back earlier.
Nice loophole you found there, buddy.
Not a loophole.
The new owner has paid for the acquisition. Do we have a problem? That needs to be resolved with Ned. Too bad he's not around to keep hostage anymore.
I guess we have to agree to disagree. Best of luck in your life with that logic.
I am not taking sides only pointing out that Justin can simply run his own version with his stake intact. It's up to everyone here which version of steem has value.. I'm not a fan of our consensus witnesses and think they act very unprofessional and can't hack it anywhere else in the world of business so I'm more than open to supporting what may be a scumbag that can actually create something valuable with the tech..
Our steem team has floundered, whined, and can't see the forest for the trees.. Why even bother having a conversation with wolf he is like the most duplicitous politically motivated ass clown on steem.
God, I'm really trying to move on from the subject! 😄
My opinion hasn't changed regarding property and the unnecessary use of force, although I see many attempts to make it right-er (as in justifiable) post factum.
Hopefully it all plays out well.
Time will tell, in the meantime it's nice to see others at least questioning the council of freedom and their less than admirable track record.. Mr. Wolf muted me long ago as I was quite vocal in my opposition of his rise to power.. It went against our collective botter judgement.. 🤖 Have to wonder what possessed such an almighty force to mute lil ol having an opinion me.. Wanker
"stake on accounts belonging to Steemit Inc, the company that unfairly mined STEEM in the past and made social contracts to only use those funds for the Steem ecosystem"
Can you show me that contract please @therealwolf ?
There are many different instances where the social contract of using the stake for Steem was defined.
For example, in the 2017 Roadmap (https://steem.com/2017roadmap.pdf)
Here is a video where the social contract is mentioned:
As far as I'm aware, nothing that you've presented is legally binding (wouldn't hold up as a legal contract in court). So, you're essentially admitting that you were putting your trust in Ned that he'd hold true to his words, am I right?
And that justifies sucking all the power away from the new owner of those Steem that he was holding when he made that "social contract", correct?
The way I see it, there's all kinds of risk coming into play with this choice to soft-fork away Steemit's influence on the chain, the biggest of which may not even be the potential legal issues. Steem may never be able to recover from the negative perception of what can easily be perceived as randomly deciding to delete the largest holder's stake. Who would want to invest into that?
That ship sailed long ago my friends
Good post man. I respect your stance on this.
Thanks. I hope we all come up with an ideal solution.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Can you explain what you mean here? As long as the majority of witnesses support it (or don't), the longest chain will win. Micro forks may happen, but the longest chain will win which will exclude (or include) a transaction that is currently being blocked based on the majority of the elected witnesses. That's my understanding today, anyway.
I'm curious, do you think the Townhall meeting would have happened if the witnesses had done nothing?
What I was thinking is that non-SF backup witnesses could be somehow pushed up to the top 20.
As for the Townhall, we haven’t tried to make it or a similar meeting happen before deciding on the SF have we? We could have all compiled the SF, request for a friendly meeting and stand ready for activation. And by request I mean an en masse campaign to reach out to Justin on major platforms he is on. The SF surely did make it happen fast
Posted using Partiko iOS
Well done. I'm waiting to see what witnesses support this, and I'll remove my vote from them and transfer it to ones that don't.
Cg
You have my continued support, @quochuy. All witnesses which installed 22.2 have lost my support. They have broken the trust of the chain in my opinion.
The existential threat is not gone. A billionaire can still buy a majority stake on the exchanges. What was/is needed is a solution that will affect all accounts and not targeted ones.
Some ideas have been put out there in some of my comments on the subject.
Why Now?
Because this is the first time that STEEM Witnesses, themselves, are threatened. If this BS narrative of protecting the chain were true then something would have been done when @ned was still with us.
We are seeing Jonny come lately self interests in action, not solutions.
I think I might actually be in agreement with you. I'm happy to see people questioning our consensus witnesses that were hand selected by an "anonymous" central controlling non participating in any other capacities stakeholder ... I'm fine with flushing these turds for a new bathroom..
We don't have any problem with Justin's stake, the problem is with Ned's stake. Ned sold stake that is not supposed to be sold.
Justin should solve the problem with Ned.
Well said!
You and I think a lot alike. Great write up and analysis.
Philosophically and spiritually I agree, but technically and practically, I do not.
I still support you and am glad to hear your point of view.
In my opinion if Justin bought 70 million Steem on the open market, we would all be stinking up our pants now as he would have the full ability and moral authority to do as he pleases (I'm sure a lot of people would have dumped at the price spike).
Also, if Mr. Ned was to sell 70 million Steem on the open market, the price would crash and we would just be really, really sad. The torch was sold/passed to a more interesting and seemingly capable person. I think he is a bit of a wise guy in the mafia sense, but I'm glad the witnesses won't kindly bend over and are also dealing with this is a mafia manner.
Justin played the first hand like an asshole new boss. Now he is being shown who is boss. He isn't Steem's owner. He is Steemit's owner. Until he understands this and is willing to act accordingly, we won't let him play with his toys in our playground.
...okay, but Steemit has a Steem holding and that, presumably, is now HIS Steem holding. That's what he bought, what he forked (no pun intended) real cash over for. And because the amount that he now controls doesn't sit well with those who make a decent earning churning out new Steem as a top 20 witness, they've decided to delete the power away from his holdings to ensure that they maintain that position.
This is akin to taking all the shareholder rights away from the top holder in a publicly traded company, rendering him/ her powerless in company decisions. The problem with that scenario is that those rights are a contractual/ legal obligation between the company and shareholder as a percent ownership, dictated by number of shares held in said company.
The question is: does this apply to ownership of the Steem blockchain as a percent ownership of the entire float of Steem, with regards to voting rights?
That, I assume, would be how outsiders perceive the situation to work, regardless of if that is or isn't backed by the law. Which is why I point out that even if this doesn't lead to lawsuits, it will likely ruin Steem's image (assuming it can be ruined more than it already has been) to any potential future speculators/ investors.
You are thinking of Steem as shareholder equity. Steem is probably not.
His Steem Power was practically nulled, the Steem is still there.
How does converting Steem to Steem Power change cryptocurrency to share holder equity from a legal perspective? It doesn't. Further anyone can buy or earn Steem and convert it to Steem Power without actually agreeing to anything. If I make you an account, there is no TOS. There is definitely no TOS to shitpost.
His ability to convert has been hampered, but he stated himself he has no immediate plans, he also didn't publically ask for anything to be done except a meeting on March 6. I'm sure he consulted lawyers. Maybe he ca wait until then to actually declare some sort of lawsuit. But I doubt he will.
Some of the witnesses are barely known others don't live antwhere that can be brought to US justice. Crypto is barely regulated.
A lawsuit would be an expensive mess that would destroy the value of Steem. It makes no sense and serves the interest of neither party and any competent judge would recognize this.
Hear hear
.