You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Today's STEEM Updates: TRON's Roy Liu & Steemit's Eli Spoke in Discord. Ned Ran his Own Discord: "No Contract with Community for Steemit Tokens". Recordings In This Post.

in #steem4 years ago

Ned seemed very clear to me and I have to agree with him regarding Steemit's stake. Anything "promised" was merely a plan of action taken by the company and those plans can change at any time. Justin bought Steemit and the stake and we have to deal with him now. Ned is not really part of the picture anymore and I think he's just trying to help move things along.

The witnesses need to figure out a good compromise ASAP that doesn't include dictating to Justin what he can do with the property he legally purchased.

If there cannot be a good middle ground, then the witnesses should give it up and start a new chain.


This is turning out to be a dumpster fire of the utmost proportions... what a mess. Both sides have good points. Nobody wants a centralized chain though, or to become a TRON token. Everyone is way too invested in Steem. I feel for @justinsunsteemit however as well ... but also... seems like people have a hard time trusting him... Very hard to discern what the 'true motives' are. Maybe I'm just naive, or too empathetic. In any case, keeping fingers crossed for a win-win situation.

Everyone be acting like STINC owe them anything when in reality we're simply HODLing empty promises on text without some kind of a legal bind to that agreement. I don't see why the witnesses didn't get STINC to somehow put down that agreement on code. When Tron team asked to see it, the witnesses said they needed some time to collect it.

Really? We claim we reached out to have THIS conversation and we're yet to get the facts straight, but it's okay to jump ahead to freeze stake.

We negotiated in bad faith by taking Ned's word for it for 4 years. Today, we're freezing someone's stake. Shows how little we understand contracts on the blockchain. Do we really believe this blockchain code is law thing, or we pop it whenever it's convenient for us?

Steem's been too hostile to new people and people who have a different opinion. Centralization in decentralization.

You see it everywhere you look. They're trying to censor a person's opinion because it doesn't align with theirs. Earlier, they froze STINC's stake, then a witness called the steemit twitter account handler a monkey. Today, it's @lukestokes calling on the community to boycott interface. (se his latest post)

You'd ask, what community?

The community they've consistently ignored for years, choosing rather to circle-jerk themselves to the trending page on steem related posts?

The community whose witness votes never counted because the top 20 was essentially centralised by 2 accounts (@freedom and @pumpkin) for years.

It's pathetic how they hide under the cloak of community to bully and demand the community take responsibility for them.

-- @pangoli

you may like this you can find it in steemwallet
Steemit Inc. (The “Company”), is a private company that helps develop the open-source software that powers, 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.

Clearly, despite our personal opinions regarding what does or does not constitute obligation, agreement, or contract between investors relying on Stinc's, @ned's, and @dantheman's representations regarding the deployment of the founder's stake, there are grounds to determine the answers to those questions in litigation.

There are certainly enough folks hereabouts that are willing to claim they have been financially harmed by this sale and the hostile takeover of Steem governance, and the seizure of their tokens on exchanges - that still remain unavailable to their proper owners last I heard.

Regardless of what witnesses do, financial injury is being done as we speak, and those parties will have to settle their claims, or seek remedy juridically, at their sole options. That's not up to the witnesses, but that continuing financial injury is certainly their concern, and should be at the top of their priorities.

Any compromise they agree to should necessarily resolve financial harm ongoing as quickly and completely as possible, while also ensuring no more is forthcoming. That's a tall order, and likely to involve restricting voting rights on somebody's stake, to make sure this never happens again.

...willing to claim they have been financially harmed...

Appealing to "the government" expecting them to "fix" what is, essentially, a systemic software design error for a bunch of hypocritical "libertarian" techno-idealists is INSANE.


(IFF) you subscribe to "the rule of law" (THEN) "special" "emergency" "temporary" "powers" should NEVER be implemented.

Live by the blockchain-code-law, die by the blockchain-code-law.

Making up new rules for fabricated "emergencies" is a core ethical violation (patriot-act).

Everybody knew the ninjamine was a "problem" but their fundamental mistake was to "trust" ned. Never trust a human to do anything except act in their own personal self-interest.


If ned was so trustworthy, they would have VOLUNTARILY divested the ninjamined stake. They could have EASILY done this by slowly dumping at least 50% of the ninjamine onto the OPEN MARKET (and transferred the proceeds to steemit or whatever he promised to do).

sURE this would have lowered the market-price of steem tokens (better reflecting the TRUE-market-value), but this is not necessarily a "bad" thing. A reliable micro-payment system is a major paradigm shift away from traditional models and a low market-price of steem would lower the bar for new accounts (allowing regular people to "compete" with the "big-fish" (oligarchs).

@themarkymark and @freebornangel and @tarazkp and @abh12345 and others have repeated told myself and others,

"if you don't like it, then start your own blockchain".

They should take their own advice.

The reason @ned didn't execute code restricting his ability to exercise governance is apparent today. I agree that is not worthy of trust. It remains a fact that his long failure to exercise that governance yet enables people to believe the illusion Steem is decentralized, or ever has been.

Either Tron and the exchanges execute code that prevents their exercise of governance, or Steem remains the exclusive possession of Tron, to whom @ned sold it. We users of Steem aren't a possession, but that only matters if we act to retain our agency. If Tron does not execute that code, and no one cares, we might as well be possessions of Tron.

I presently await the community understanding the reality of Steem's ownership and execution of a HF to create a new platform that enables us to actually have a decentralized community.

I presently await the community understanding the reality of Steem's ownership and execution of a HF to create a new platform that enables us to actually have a decentralized community.

Thank you for your vigilance.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.17
TRX 0.09
JST 0.023
BTC 27756.97
ETH 1648.55
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.23