I'm thinking that given these 'requests' to maintain Stinc's stake visibly, I'm surprised current witnesses remain witnesses.
It will certainly make it less secure to be a top witness, when the stake requisite to voting in a top witness is no longer visibly held by one account.
I reckon the threat to fork out Stinc's stake has made it impossible for a corporate officer with fiduciary duties to leave that asset in a vulnerable position. I don't think that legally @ned has any other option.
I reckon useful witnesses will turn to finding ways to actually secure the blockchain, rather than threatening to not do so if they don't get what they want, and working to improve it for the benefit of the folks that vote for them.
I'm thinking that given these 'requests' to maintain Stinc's stake visibly, I'm surprised current witnesses remain witnesses.
It will certainly make it less secure to be a top witness, when the stake requisite to voting in a top witness is no longer visibly held by one account.
I reckon the threat to fork out Stinc's stake has made it impossible for a corporate officer with fiduciary duties to leave that asset in a vulnerable position. I don't think that legally @ned has any other option.
I reckon useful witnesses will turn to finding ways to actually secure the blockchain, rather than threatening to not do so if they don't get what they want, and working to improve it for the benefit of the folks that vote for them.
Make any sense?
I have never done this
As we are engaging on these matters elsewhere, I will defer our conversation there.
Thanks!