You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The recent controversy between Steemit Inc and the community - the premine, control, and where it leads this blockchain
I shared the context in another comment, but the context was an open discussion about "what would it take to create a blockchain without Steemit Inc in control of it". Discussions were had about what it would take, who would be involved, and what the implications of these changes would be.
If you went through the same steps and replaced Steemit Inc with my name, I don't consider that a threat to me. Fork away and the best of luck.
Also to add to the context: no one ever specifically committed to "let's do this on the live Steem blockchain". You wouldn't make a decision like that unless you got to the point of knowing what it would take, who would be involved, and what the implications would be...
Really? You don't seem to care much about your stake then. I definitely would start a power down and try to save whatever I could.
On the other hand, I'd try to communicate a lot more and earlier, so I don't think I would find myself in that situation.
A fork is a fork, and in the event of a fork there's always the option for two chains to exist. The chain that has my balance could still exist, and it's probably the one I'd personally support.
I totally agree, I'd probably try my hardest to communicate with whoever is even talking about it, to see if there's some sort of remedy to the situation that didn't involve all the work involved in a fork. Sadly that didn't happen, and here we are today.
Not sure if I read the specific comment you're referring to, but this was the general gist of what I'd gathered so far, but I read this as "we were just having a casual what if conversation about what if we bankrupted Steemit Inc and stole all of Ned's STEEM."
which I think is insane. I'm trying to think of a less sensationalist word than "insane", but...yea I can't. It's pretty insane.
I appreciated your post because it feels like you were just trying to keep it real, and let us know where you stood so let's keep keeping it real and not pretend that all accounts are created equal. If you, or me, or any other account on the platform other than about 30 powered down and disappeared no one would bat an eye. But forking out Steemit and Ned would not only represent a substantial shift in power in stake holdings, but would also irreparably damage the main developer of the blockchain, these two situations are not comparable.
If I were Ned, why in Gods name would I risk letting things get to THAT point, it's already too late if the discussion escalates to let's push this on the blockchain. The fact that this was on the table is a clear and present danger and I think anyone smart would do exactly what Ned is doing. That's just my opinion.
I think that's a false premise.
Regardless of how the fork occurred, we'd have 2 "Steem" blockchains, one with a Steemit Inc balance (which they could use for funding) and one chain without it (which they wouldn't then be able to control).
If, in the event that a fork like this, were it pushed onto the live Steem blockchain (an idea no one actively supported) - you don't think Steemit Inc would just create their own fork reverting the change? I'm 99% positive they would, and then they'd change steemit.com to use that blockchain. They'd also use their exchange contacts to ensure it's listed on exchanges and traded.
I am, and thank you for the dialog on all of this. It's been interesting to engage the community on these topics and try to actually get a bit of less-sensationalized thoughts out there. There's a ton of misinformation and speculation, not only on Steem, but across all communication channels that Steem token holders use.
It's been incredibly time consuming this weekend to deal with it, which I can't always do, but I really do appreciate the opportunity to talk about this stuff.
Do you still feel this way after knowing that regardless of how a fork was performed, that Ned/Steemit Inc could just as easily deploy their own "Steem" reverting the fork, do you still feel this way?
The only thing this powerdown and move to exchanges is doing is reducing transparency and accountability. No matter what the outcome of the events are of any scenario described, there was always an option for Steemit Inc to continue on like they are today. We would just have two independent chains and some headaches.
Also to be clear, I'm still not supporting a fork, just playing through ideas.
Ahh, okay. No, I didn't understand this aspect of it. I would imagine that maybe a lot of people looking into this don't understand this part.(maybe I'm wrong) I'd have probably led with/put more emphasis on this part of your stance.
So for me this does take it out of the "theft" territory and it is definitely not as extreme as I'd first imagined.
That said, I still can't disagree with what Ned is doing from a business perspective. That fork would definitely be harmful to Steemit Inc. and if I were the CEO of that company it would be my job to protect my company and it's assets with whatever levers I have at my disposal.
This is in line with people's(yours, I forget) complaints that he has put company over community. As CEO, the reality is that's his job. Obviously the best case scenario from their point of view are things that are good for both. Maybe the road forward is considering ideas that don't throw out the baby with the bathwater?
Noted, thanks! I put so much time in that post that by the end of day 3, I don't think I had a great grasp on the entire message.
I understand that, and I'd probably consider the same actions. However, I'd also consider the other side effects that the action would cause.
In this specific example, that action caused a scare in the community, and degraded any level of transparency into the organization.
Is that worth protecting the companies aspect from an unknown risk? That ends up being a subjective call.
If I were the CEO, I probably would have engaged in a conversation rather than taking actions and going on the offensive. I know that if a fork occurs on the live network it'd be a headache, but nothing irreversible.
We've talked for years at this point about many more "Steemit Inc Friendly" options, I think this instance was just one of the first where Steemit Inc had no control over the direction, nor any willingness to engage and learn why it was being discussed.
After things calm down again hopefully we'll be able to look at how this situation unfolded and learn how better to approach more "dangerous" issues like this one. Probably (and unfortunately) it will require more privacy while the core concept is worked out, after which it would be made completely public as the idea is considered by the larger community.
And immediate trust that Steemit Inc is acting rationally.
I can't remember the last time I had that trust.