As I said, the top witnesses made a very wrong and dangerous choice. Lock someone's asset is not the spirit of the blockchain. Lock asset is a nuclear weapon. Another nuclear weapon is exchange's vote. The two weapons should be the last choices but the top witnesses used one. So I think the top witnesses upgrade the conflict to the war.

I absolutely persist my opinion that people's asset cannot be locked and that's why I choose 0.22.5.

And I also confuse why the top witnesses did not lock coins when Ned was there? Is this a double standard way?

Respect is mutual. If Ned was the former leader of the Steem, do you think lock asset is a respect way to welcome a new leader?

If lock someone's asset becomes the normal state of the community, I don't think there is any need to explore the future of the community. What's to talk about after the assets have been confiscated? :-)