You know, it's funny. I read that entire thread and saw a lot of perfectly reasonable criticisms of Ned's behavior, presentation, and choices – but nothing about the one part of it which jumped out at me as the most ludicrous and perhaps the most dangerous.

@ned to @paulag five days ago:

Steemit, Inc is a private company conducting business without customers, debt or debtors.

Is there a way to say how much of a lie that statement is in multiple directions without it turning into some sort of incendiary personal attack. It simply may not be possible – so I'm not going to bother to try.

Do you know what we call a private company doing business without customers? A hobby. Other potentially accurate answers include "a money sink," "a scam," and "not long for this world." Any of these are acceptable descriptors of a private company of which one of the major founders and backers describes it as "without customers."

And "without debt or debtors?" That's a straight up lie. All of the employees count as a certain level of debt unless they were simply volunteers, at which point it would be inaccurate to describe them as "employees." And certainly you wouldn't have to lay off 70% of them if they didn't represent that kind of ongoing debt simply because they expect to continue to get paid.

No debtors? Seriously? I'm sure that liquidating a pile of the ninja-mined stake last summer was profitable and all, but given the way the rest of the company has been run and your previous companies as well, I find it difficult to imagine that there hasn't been some uncomfortable debtors looking at the state of the cryptocurrency market and giving Ned/Steemit Inc. uncomfortable sidelong glances.

I don't believe it, is what I'm saying. I'm also saying that other people shouldn't believe it, either. And even, by some miracle, if there weren't any significant outstanding corporate debts – it's unwise to mention them because sensible people who have some experience with running businesses and understand that debt is a fluctuating creature you have to feed once in a while, get the strong feeling that you're a liar, anyway.

I found it interesting that nobody called this out in particular even though it was some of the most bald-faced, obvious crap in the reply.

Sure, I get it. Steemit Inc. established the steem blockchain with the expectation that all they had to do was build it and others would come and make them rich, and they have no obligation to transparency, timely interaction, actual success in development, or any other number of things having established the rickety structure we are all standing on. If it falls, it falls, and they feel no obligation or responsibility to everyone else whom they lured onto the grandstand with the siren song of "easy money." Sure, fine. They are not legally required to show anybody anything, even though one of the strongest arguments for the steem blockchain has always been "complete transparency."

Not so complete. Not so transparent. And no apologies for that.

Fine. Super.

Ned and Steemit Inc. have no obligation at all to the user base.

But likewise, and perhaps this is what was forgotten via some magic, the user base has no obligation to Steemit Inc. or to Ned. Just because he's sitting on a pile of unmoving SP, waiting for the opportunity to liquidate it when the market goes back up again and effectively losing nothing in the meantime because of it, that creates no obligation in us to enrich him. It creates no obligation in us to build on the platform, given that there are a multitude of other platforms out there with more interested, more active, and more honest developers. It creates no obligation in us to use the platform, which reduces the value of the blockchain as a tool for every post that doesn't get made. It creates no obligation in us to do anything, really.

Nothing except to point out that if Ned and Steemit Inc. really were interested in building a platform, building a system that delivers value to individuals, actually doing something useful for us – the last year of development would probably have gone a very different way.

All of that summed up in a single line from Ned's response to Paula almost a week ago. An almost overlooked and largely ignored line.

@smooth was right, of course. Partners share information. Partners often open the books in order to establish a baseline of trust. Partners accept that vulnerability goes both ways.

Employers don't. Owners don't.

So if you find yourself wondering how Steemit Inc. sees you as a developer or as a user, if you wonder if perhaps you are considered their partner in the grand experiment we are now standing in the middle of – now you know.

You are not here to be their partner. They do not see you as their partner. They never have seen you as their partner.

At best they see you as an employee, someone who labors to increase the value that they possess in exchange for a slightly lesser increase in the value that you possess.

At worst – I'll let you work that out.

So you make the call about how you feel about all of this. You make the call about what to do with your money and where to put it. You make the call about what to do with your STEEM and who should own it. I trust you to do whatever you want to with your stuff.

But I don't trust Ned. He hasn't really given me reason to.

I'm not his partner. I'm not his customer. And he owes me nothing.

What does that make me to him? What does it make you to him?