Steem Town Hall - Today in 1 hour

in #steem4 months ago

image.png

Mspwaves will be hosting another steem town hall today at noon. We're looking for help today though. We're asking everyone to help find every reference possible to the steemit stake being

  1. non-voting
  2. used to develop the chain
  3. used for onboarding
  4. any other mention

github, twitter, bitcointalk, youtube, official publications are all fair game. Please help by putting links you find as comments in this post.

Sort:  
Loading...

Original Message:
Huh!

I am okay for the 1.non voting

All the rest is up to Justin Sun. He bought it legally and therefore we cannot decide unilateraly to do whatever we want with this stake ! That will be equivalent to stealing and therefore I would not support it…

We have to find a solution to support Steem's Blockchain Development Team but if Justin bought Ned's stake, we cannot take it away from him except if it was writtent in a contract that he couldn't use it as he pleases (which I Believe was not the case).

Dear Witnesses, Be careful not to go too far in this "fight"...

Update post clarification

@aggroed is actually looking for proofs that Steemit Inc. said they would use their pre-mined stake to do the Following.

  1. non-voting
  2. used to develop the chain
  3. used for onboarding
  4. any other mention

Sorry for the misunderstanding

It’s easy to join the fuck Justin parade. Easy to point fingers. Easy to get over emotional. Easy to make demands and fold you’re arms like a stubborn Trump. Easy to misconstrue, misconceive and latch on to the thing that feed your fears. Easy to troll and get off on instigating. Look at my Meme! Look at my Meme! I’m so funny!
It’s harder to step out of self, to see the opposing view. To care about your enemy and not make them a ‘thing’ or a ‘they’.
This community always has pitchforks at the ready. So many swinging cocks around, massaging there pointless man baby hard ons while clicking at a computer screen.

This whole fucking thing is a giant nothing burger that can be summed up quickly.

1.Man invests.

2.Small group of ‘leaders’ flex too quickly in the name of protection.

3.Investor reacts to secure investment.

4.Media shit storm with fake news on all sides.

Get out the popcorn... cause if some level headed voices dont step forward in these negotiations then the pooch is about to get screwed deep doggie style!

Regardless of your pejorative assertions, @justinsunsteemit purchased a specific asset which has specific capabilities and limitations. He cannot now simply pretend it is something else.

It is what it is, and as it's owner he is obligated to honor what it is.

In the run up to the launch of the public website during the mining process, Stinc, specifically @dantheman, said:

"For those who are doing the math, this means we have mined 75% of the STEEM held by current accounts.
For those who are worried about us dumping, we intend to convert it all to VESTS at the end of the week.
VESTS are locked up, non-transverable, non-divisible, STEEM that can only be unlocked via 104 equal weekly payments (2 years)."

This was an obligation Stinc undertook to limit it's use of that stake, which as far as I know they met fully. Just as that obligation applied to the stake @justinsunsteemit purchased, other obligations also applied, and some of those obligations remain outstanding and currently unmet in full.

Those obligations Stinc remains liable to fulfill, and as the owner of Stinc, @justinsunsteemit and Tron are liable to fulfill them. If Tron did not do as I did and research the public statements made by Stinc and it's devs prior to their purchase that obligated Stinc to specific liabilities, that's on Sun and Tron. As I have repeatedly pointed out, all that would have required to do is an intern and a couple pots of coffee to undertake.

You'd think a billionaire could afford such a trifling cost to understand an asset he was considering purchasing. Regardless of whether Sun did due diligence or not, Stinc is what it is, and what it is remains obligated to investors that purchased Steem from it in reliance on it's representations. Sun owns Stinc, and is now obligated to fulfill those obligations.

That's simply corporate law.

I don't think that quoted statement says anything besides that STINC vested their stake, and therefore the stake is subject to power down rules, which at the time took 104 weeks to complete. The protocol change to 13 weeks power down later changed that timeframe.

We are looking for statements that commit to specific uses or lack thereof of the STINC STEEM & vests.

I agree the statement quoted isn't the droids we're looking for. I just used it as an example of obligations applicable to stake, and pointed out that obligation had been completely fulfilled.

That's what should happen to obligations, such as those that were undertaken to fund development with the founder's stake, which I have provided examples of elsewhere.

Stinc undertook those obligations with that stake in order to enable investors to be comfortable with Stinc holding that stake. Sun bought Stinc complete with those obligations, and if he doesn't honor them the investors that plunked down their money for Steem based on those representations that Sun is now liable to meet, they suffer financial injury, which is actionable at law.

I provided that example of obligations being met to illustrate the principle that such obligations are undertaken to enable investment. This shows that investors depend on fulfillment of obligations. This creates a contractual relationship between obligors and obligees. Sun needs to fulfill the obligations Stinc undertook, because Sun is now Stinc.

But Sun did not do anything with the Stake !
The witnesses made a hostile move without warning and without provocation, a sneak attack.
That is simply a fact.

Sun took over all consensus witness positions - which Stinc has long stated it's stake would not be used to do. All the witnesses intended (although IMHO they did more than they intended by preventing stake from being sold) was to prevent that exact thing.

Not a sneak attack. Simply holding Stinc to it's obligations it has long made to investors, because Stinc has a new owner they heard saying different things than the former owners did.

Edit: also, I posted after the 'sneak attack' and counseled against it. I said when the music starts, you dance with the partner you have. I also changed all my witness votes then too.

I'm not an advocate of pre-emptive attacks, but I wasn't consulted.

@valued-customer
Id say it is still up for debate if there is legality toward these promises made by Ned or steemit inc
But don’t get me wrong, I’m not judging the witness choice of soft fork. I recognize why it happened, if anything perhaps I find it hasty...but I get the why.
In the same way I get the why of Justin reaction.

For me this is a call out for reasonable voices at the negotiation table.
I just framed it in my own butt way🍑

Loading...

A minority voice of reason and logic.. I didn't think anyone was left that understands the big boy world of merger acquisition finance.

You are doing exactly what you are saying people should avoid doing.

Maybe? Butt my name is Buttcoins... I’m not claiming to be reasonable.... I’m claiming to want calm and reasonable people at the negotiating table.

Posted using Partiko iOS

You misunderstood.

We are looking for reference to the original mention of the usage for the STEEM INC stake. Likely buried in the blockchain 4 years back.

Yes people told me that afterwards. I understand more and I am less worried now :D.
Sorry !

Right. Nevertheless I back your sentence:

Dear Witnesses, Be careful not to go too far in this "fight"...

The door should stay open for constructivly seeking for solutions which are acceptable for both struggling sides.
We shouldn't neglect the fact that Justin Sun is capable of buying and using even mosre STEEM if necessary.

That said, it is fascinating to see the STEEM community fight for their chain, like Asterix and Obelix against the Romans. :)

Do have a look at my reply to the OP, in which I copy and paste specific statements made by @dantheman that state restrictions placed on the Stinc stake that is what Tron and @justinsunsteemit purchased. They didn't purchase something without restrictions. They purchased what Stinc possessed, which had been alleged from it's conception to be used for a specific purpose, not simply unrestricted Steem that could be sold without obligation to subsequent investors.

I may not fully have an understanding of the situation, but, if there was an agreed upon limitation placed upon the stake by the previous owner, and that owner sold the stake to someone else, unless that someone else agreed to the restriction then the restriction no longer stands. Therefore, it should be Ned that everyone is pissed off at and not Justin Sun. If I was Justin Sun, and I just bought a metric $hit ton of Steem, and I own Steemit, I could care less about some verbal agreement that Ned made with the community years ago.

"...if there was an agreed upon limitation placed upon the stake by the previous owner, and that owner sold the stake to someone else, unless that someone else agreed to the restriction then the restriction no longer stands."

This is not my understanding of relevant law. The emotion assigned to different actors is irrelevant. What is relevant is the obligations undertaken by corporations and representations to investors corporations make. The fact is that if a corporation manufactures a car that goes 50mph, a purchaser of the corporation cannot claim the car goes 60mph, because it has purchased the car manufacturing ability the corporation has, not what it prefers to have.

There are no mentions of verbal agreements in my comments. All the assertions and obligations I discuss have been in writing, and public. Do consult counsel rather than rely on emotions to trigger your ideas. Substantive case law exists regarding corporate liability and representations to investors to base understanding of the extant situation on.

Again, as I stated, I may not have a full understanding of the entire situation, however, unless it is written in a legally binding document and transferable to any owner then it does not stand to hold up in court. Your comparison is invalid since car companies are bound by may "written" legal agreements by many governmental authorities.

Currently, Steem, a crypto-currency, still cannot be agreed upon in any country. There are no set rules governing the ownership and use in most of the world yet. This is a very gray area right now. If there are written agreements, and I am not doubting that what you say isn't factual or partially factual, do those agreements in deed extend to all future owners, over a specified time frame, etc? If there is such an agreement, then even the sale of said stake would be in direct violation of the agreement, if it is in fact legally binding. I tend to think that people of the stature and wealth do not go in to multi-million dollar agreements without first exploring their options and minimizing their risk.

Having said that, if there is no legal requirement biding JS from doing as he wishes with the shares, then it is the witnesses who have committed the criminal act. Personally, I am not for or against JS, I am for "ME", but I have the ability to look at this situation objectively and from a business stand point.

I note we aren't lawyers, and this isn't a court, so we're just expressing our personal opinions here, to little effect. Do note that verbal agreements based on nothing more than handshakes have been enforced by courts. The written assurances made by Stinc and it's principals exist, and do assure investors the founder's stake is earmarked for specific purposes and exempt from exercising governance, representations on which investors relied.

It is a truism that America is a litigious society, and this reveals the above facts are eminently potential of driving litigation.

Regardless, the facts of our present circumstances are that Tron presently exercises ownership of Steem, and allows the illusion the community possesses nominal stake to elect consensus witnesses by it's choice. Either Tron and the exchanges execute code which prevents them from exercising governance, or Steem remains Tron's possession.

The ball's in Tron's court. Either Sun executes that code and relinquishes ownership of Steem, or we will eventually either remain on his personal platform, or fork off.

I don't think he will, and I'm awaiting the fork.

I understand all of your points, but still I have not been convinced that, like him or not, Justin Sun is the enemy here. He bought something, people basically nullified what he bought, then they threatened to make it worthless. Unless I see official documentation that Sun agreed to continue what Ned had, as far as I know, verbally stated, then JS is just as much a victim of Ned's scamming the community than the community is. In this case I think that it should be Ned that everyone is pissed at and it should be him with his feet to the fire.

What if it wasn't JS that they were talking about forking out of what he bought but it was ours. Not so many people would be so eager to allow such a fork.

"I have not been convinced that, like him or not, Justin Sun is the enemy here."

If assuming control of Steem governance isn't enough evidence to grasp whether or not Sun is the enemy of decentralized governance, then nothing will be.

Corporations transfer controlling interest all the time, and the corporate liabilities have necessarily been transferred along with the equity. That's how it works, and how it has always worked. Stinc continually and consistently represented to investors that it's stake would not be used for governance, which it was not, and would be used for development, which it was.

Both their representations and their actions demonstrated to investors that this was the case. Tron's purchase of that corporation and stake does not change this corporate liability in the least, and it doesn't matter what @ned said or did. Tron may have legal grounds to pursue remedies from @ned - but we can't know, and have no business asking, since Tron has revealed those transactions are covered by NDAs, which preclude our being informed of such details.

That means there's no point in speculating about what @ned did or didn't do or say in regards to this transaction, and even less benefit in concluding without any evidence whatsoever other than the statements of the new owner of Stinc that has undertaken sole governance of our blockchain without being authorized by anything other than it's present stake to do so, that it's all @ned's fault.

Frankly, it doesn't matter, and I don't care. What matters is the law regarding corporate liability, and that has been established for centuries in ways that are relevant to our present exigency.

Tron is bound by those representations, because are now the company that made them, and that's the law. They bought those representations when they bought the stake they referred to.

Legally speaking, you can argue that Tron Overlord Justin Sun can do certain things. But at the same time, that does not necessarily mean he should. Also, we should also consider how things can affect Steem itself as a blockchain, as a whole, as opposed to just the Steemit Inc company.

Loading...

From the bitcoin talk page 2:
Screen Shot 20200304 at 21.51.55.png

This guy bytemaster is same guy that proposed the code change 324 to code lock Steemit Inc's stake. Did he work for Steemit Inc?
Actually his avatar looks like Dan Larimer. Is it Dan?

Yep, Dan Larimer was one of the founder of Steemit Inc. until he was pushed out by Ned Scott and forced him into his new project EOS.

https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues/324
August 2016

"This feature could be used by @steemit to create a binding contract with the community that the account could not be used to:

take control of witness queue
take control of all content rewards"

Clearly an expectation of community which Steemit Inc employees did not dispute and indeed accepted the blockchain code change that went into a later hard fork.

nice find. merged into master in commit 408d667 and has been part of all of the following releases:

v0.22.1 v0.22.1-no-mira v0.22.0 v0.22.0-no-mira v0.21.1 v0.21.1-no-mira v0.21.0 v0.21.0rc2 v0.21.0rc1 v0.21.0-no-mira v0.20.12 v0.20.12-no-mira v0.20.11 v0.20.10 v0.20.9 v0.20.8 v0.20.7 v0.20.6 v0.20.6rc1 v0.20.5 v0.20.4 v0.20.2 v0.20.1 v0.20.0 v0.20.0rc1 v0.19.12 v0.19.11 v0.19.10 v0.19.6 v0.19.5 v0.19.4rc1 v0.19.3 v0.19.2 v0.19.1 v0.19.1rc1 v0.19.0 v0.19.0rc3 v0.19.0rc2 v0.19.0rc1 v0.18.5 v0.18.4 v0.18.3 v0.18.3rc1 v0.18.2 v0.18.1 v0.18.0 v0.17.1 v0.17.0 v0.17.0rc3 v0.17.0rc2 v0.17.0rc1 v0.16.4 v0.16.3 v0.16.2 v0.16.1 v0.16.1rc1 v0.16.0 v0.16.0rc3 v0.16.0rc2 v0.16.0rc1 v0.15.0 v0.14.3rc1 v0.14.2 v0.14.1 v0.14.0 v0.14.0rc1 dump-api-call-request-response-first 0.14.0-shared-db

Unfortunately, I don't see any statements by Larimer or other STINC employees that commit to applying this operation to STINC stake. Still a useful reference for this research project.

Credit goes to @brianoflondon. He found it.

I pulled it off the Discord chat, can't see who posted it there.

A summary of the good evidence we've found in the last 4 hours.
https://steempeak.com/ninjamine/@apshamilton/evidence-of-steemit-inc-making-representations-about-use-of-ninja-mined-stake

Its enough to present to Justin as Hors d'oeuvre.

Best to use eSteem search function to search on key terms. I have used it to great effect to collect evidence for the Crypto Class Action.

@aggroed I'm nearly sure I read something in the dev slack a long time ago. Is there a database or api access to archived stuff and who could get me access.

@arcange should be able to scan the sql for key words in the comments on the blockchain.

DanL might also be able to help if someone was in contact???????

@dantheman is central to this issue, and may find it inadvisable to speak freely regarding present circumstances. He may also be eager to provide relevant information to illuminate his specific actions to conform to law and ethical standards.

We won't know until he has been contacted regarding the matter.

Dan has been active on twitter regarding this matter. He has not talked specifically about that, but seems to be fairly interested in the decentralization and success of the steem blockchain.

Posted using Partiko iOS

The only thing I see of Twitter is when folks post links to it. I can't swim in that stream.

You've got just enough time to watch this while waiting...

This sounds like a great idea. The truth is still the same. Blockchain technology is like the Wild West. If there is no sign legal document, there is nothing. I don't know a judge anywhere that would try to uphold a handshake agreement (or a post or promise) between two parties, when a third party bought it and has the legal documents to prove he owns his stake. I love to watch all of the passion that is happening, but I think that the Steem Witnesses may be getting alittle out of their wheelhouse when they are trying to argue the definition of a legal contract, and no one sounded willing to create a legal document with Justin. You just seem to be gathering more documents that show exactly what everyone already knows. Ned made the "deal"...and no one denies that. What do you honestly think that this will achieve, even when they have no plan to uphold Ned's handshake? Seems like saber rattling. Cheers.

"If there is no sign legal document, there is nothing."

[citation needed]

In innumerable examples of prior litigation, representations made in writing are evidentiary. If you disagree with this, please provide cites that prove your assertion. My counsel does not agree with your assertion.

Your understanding of what deal @ned and @justinsunsteemit undertook seems to be limited to statements of @justinsunsteemit orally and in writing regarding that deal. Do you have actual evidence besides that to base your assertions of what @ned did or didn't do?

If you do, please provide that evidence. I am unsatisfied that your representations here accurately characterize the substance of the transaction in question.

I appreciate your feedback, and I respect your view. I am simply using the examples that have been given here on the blockchain. It has been given from members of the Steem blockchain regarding whatever has happened. I'm not claiming to be any sort of attorney, I am just using good sense. If I were a betting man, I would bet that there is no legal leg to stand on. To follow that up...it doesn't matter. Who here would actually represent "the community" in any sort of legal action against Steemit Inc. Who is willing to shed their anonymity and step up and sue? looks around no? no takers?

I am just saying that it doesn't really matter what comes of this, what is the actual legal follow through that the Steem Witnesses could present? It just seems like a bunch of excitement and energy and passion...but beyond that I think they will find that the only option is to go along or fork. Nothing really changes. Be well

No one needs to represent the community. Injured parties are availed the legal process to remedy tortuous harm, which the exchanges have caused their customers by stealing their money so Sun could take over Steem governance. If enough of them pop up, an enterprising att'y could try to fold them into a class action.

Sun's bots acting as witnesses are currently failing to update the price feeds, which several witnesses have alleged will cause harm to the blockchain. That would, if true, injure all stakeholders. Again, torts are remedied by legal action, and if enough of us pursue remedy at law class action can ensue.

Financial harm is litigated alla time. It's why lawyers rule the world.

Sad, but true.

Steem Witnesses may be getting alittle out of their wheelhouse when they are trying to argue the definition of a legal contract

If we interpret their argument at face value, that Steemit Inc. inherited a contractual obligation, then they are gathering evidence that can be used against themselves, as they are the party attempting to prevent Steemit Inc. from fulfilling this alleged contractual obligation.

Well I won a lawsuit on that principle if a handshake.. But if It's somewhere on the blockchain it's the same as a contract. If you go 1 year back you can also find something because they wanted to freeze ned wallet of the ninja mined tokens I also recall that he said that it would be used for development etc.

Sweet. Was the handshake between you and someone else. Or was the handshake between two other people and you were the third party?

It was the handshake between me and someone else.

In this case, the handshake did not involve Justin.

🤣😂🤣😂🤣 nope Mr. Sun is Mr sun. But I see that we have 7? Witnesses back.

I listened to the meeting with Justin and some of our witnesses and that was a shit show. We need to find a couple people that we want to represent us as a community.

Also is there a link to the Town Hall recording. I missed it and would like to listen to what you guys were discussing.

Some were reasonable and others not. Threatening, ranting, exiting early and refusing to return until certain demands were met were not helpful.

github, twitter, bitcointalk, youtube, official publications are all fair game. Please help by putting links you find as comments in this post.

Indeed. Let's get the evidence written to the blockchain all in one place! I'll make sure to upvote any original references and others should do the same!

My opinion has turned alot this past few days. Kinda glad you guys are fighting so hard. After hearing that witnesses and sun convo I hope you take back the chain

What are the plans after you guys take back the chain tho? Like his stake, the exchanges stake? Are they going be left alone and 13 week power down?

Clearly you nerds aren't the most litigious bunch... I'm not even going to waste my time or thumb pressing on this absurd premise.. If y'all can't move on and realise you have no leverage on this matter it's only a further demonstration of your collective incompetence in business as well as governance.. Basically, you look more idiotic than before, which is stupefying..

Oddly, I find your scathing disregard quite refreshing. Keep on bashing fact finders. It's encouraging.

"scathing disregard" I rather like that haha, in another time and place I'd use that as my moniker..

It's not my goal to be so obstinate but it's just too easy in lieu of the degradation of currently taking place..

I appreciate you being able to not simply tell me to f off which I'm quite accustomed to.. It's a fun place to speak freely and perhaps that's the major draw for me. Plus, i spent many hours learning about this blockchain and others over the last 18 months so there are redeemable attributes.

You like it here. I feel you. Me too.

I would really be right put out if the CCP started censoring this place like Twatter. That's what I think we're looking at if we fail to regain the consensus. Whether or not I have the skills, I have the enemy to face, so I am trying to get the blockchain under the control of the prior oligarchy again.

It has proved to be pretty censorship resistant.

There's two different things to note here.

The legal aspect and the moral aspect.

Legally, the community is completely in the clear since the terms of service for steemit are clear as day: https://steemit.com/tos.html

All proposed Steem blockchain transactions must be confirmed and recorded in the Steem blockchain via the Steem distributed consensus network (a peer-to-peer network), which is not owned, controlled, or operated by us. The Steem blockchain is operated by a decentralized network of independent third parties. We have no control over the Steem blockchain and therefore cannot and will not ensure that any transaction details you submit via the Services will be confirmed on the Steem blockchain. You acknowledge and agree that the transaction details you submit via the Services may not be completed, or may be substantially delayed, by the Steem blockchain. You may use the Services to submit these details to the Steem blockchain.

If Ned misrepresented Steemit to Tron or provided any guarantees to the contrary, that is between them.

The moral aspect should be covered by the material gathered already and various statements of Ned made over the years. It does not have to be "legally-binding" as there is no legal issue here. It just has to show that the witnesses did not behave immorally.

That being said, I think the soft fork was a rash/rushed decision that should not have occured.

Ignoring any legal or moral arguments for now, the actual execution of the soft fork was a failure for several reasons. The witnesses had no stated plans or goals beyond the initial act of taking the funds hostage. This is like entering a war without an exit strategy. The preemptive strike prevented Steemit Inc. from fulfulling any of its obligations, including the witnesses' demands. Additionally, they left a backdoor open that has been a known security vulnerability since the existence of the chain. This highlights a more fundamental failure in their duties as witnesses to secure the chain.

please provide a link to the discord.

Perfect, those actions you request is exactlly what is needed. I for one (and I'm sure many others) will be interested in seeing what proof or lack there of comes of this.

And so the Legal battle begins... hopefully we find something binding 🙏🏽... then he/we can go after Ned 😒

We cannot fully control this decision we must find
A solution to support Steem's Blockchain development team and constantly follow updates to see what this will turn out to be.

Thank you for this list and town hall.

We need to help justin explore the idea that steemit stake is not his private property.

Coolheads must prevail in the meantime. He can sell 1/13 a week if we cannot stop him or convince him to wait a little while.

1.non-votin
2.used to develop the chain

Both options

Trying to be neutral as possible here - this Steemit Inc.'s disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER
Steemit Inc. (The “Company”), is a private company that helps develop the open-source software that powers steemit.com, including steemd. The Company may own various digital assets, including, without limitation, quantities of cryptocurrencies such as STEEM. These assets are the sole property of the Company. Further, the Company’s mission, vision, goals, statements, actions, and core values do not constitute a contract, commitment, obligation, or other duty to any person, company or cryptocurrency network user and are subject to change at any time.

Source: https://steemit.com/about.html

I know this is not the evidence, you are looking for - but we have to face the facts here.

As if Tron's team of lawyers weren't aware of this. Come on steem Donnie's u r outta ur element.. The sophomoric level of anything and everything pertaining to the real world is frankly not surprising given the history of steem governance and business ethics.

Indeed. I strongly recommend anyone discussing these matters with Tron avail themselves of competent counsel forthwith. Failure to do so is foolish in the extreme.

Yes...but also check the TOS.