I think steem is a very amoral place, kind of like the world itself is very amoral. A person with shelter can forcibly kick someone out of a log cabin in the middle of a blizzard. When the guy is found frozen and dead, we humans will make judgments about the cause of death. Some will say the guy who forcibly kicked him out is a murderer. Some will say the guy who died, was an asshole anyway and had cruel intentions ever since his arrival.

On the other hand, if the guy with cruel intentions gets all riled-up and tries to lead a trek into the wilderness to find bigfoot. The fact he doesn't yield to the many warnings that conditions are unsafe for travel may lead to his untimely demise. Then, when they find his corpse; People will say poor shame, he should have taken the sober advice of those who knew better.

As far as nature or steem is concerned, a corpse is a corpse. Steem doesn't care who gets downvoted and why or who gets elected to witness and why. It doesn't care whether or not the chain is centralized or decentralized, but no matter which way this whole thing plays out, it will be the people who judge the actions of the new supreme leader of the one chain or the organic witnesses on the other.

Whatever we are to become, perception is half the battle and very important. And then we still have the problem of how to prevent the whole scenario from happening again by others who choose to invest heavily. Affixing social media to blockchain tech is a great solution for mining human creativity. However, with the seemingly unsolvable problems it creates, it makes you wonder if it should have ever been done in the first place.

Ultimately, we have people that believe in dPoS, and who believe in decentralization as well. We were sold a false bill of goods. Many of us were led on to believe that these two things go hand in hand. The potentially unsolvable problem and truth of the matter is that, eventually, one of these ideologies destroys the other.

Additional thoughts: If community witnesses initiate the fork and null his stake, that sends a strong market signal that the community is shunning dPoS when it becomes an inconvenience. If J.S. and his astroturf witnesses initiate the fork, he's sending a clear message that he's shunning decentralization. This is why I like that one guy's solution, where we stop worrying, do nothing and wait for J.S. to do it, and the community witnesses can shun his duplicate stake on the sister chain that resulted from his hasty decision making. This is akin to the people choosing not to follow the guy who is looking for bigfoot into the wilderness in the middle of a blizzard, and we can retain the respect of the cryptosphere by not being those who kicked him out of the cabin. Better for him to slay his investment through his actions, than us through ours. I might be speaking out of school in assuming that dhimmel's solution is viable, but if it is, it sounds like the best path to me.