RE: The Facts
First of all - the wasp and doctor example seems like a misfit. I can understandthat there may be different opinions on what party is trying to do a "hostile takeover". To me, it seems more like the situation where one child takes a toy from another child, and the other child tries to "fix" the problem by beating the first child.
I came late to the party and haven't paid attention nor done much fact checking. My initial thought when reading about the aquisition was ... "this could be bad, but I hope it's good". Well, now things have turned sour and it's hard to imagine good outcomes anymore.
I think it's important to stay rational, consider both sides of the story with an objective and neutral mind. I also think it's important that the steemit.com site won't split with the community - never underestimate the network effect, in case of a chain fork, both of the chain partitions will stay significantly weaker than the parent chain - both steemit.com and the Steem community have a lot to lose and not much to win from such a split.
The decision to block transactions (including change of witness votes) for the SteemPower held by SteemIt may have been dubious, and can be seen as a hostile takeover. I can somehow understand that the exchanges got on board if Sun have been telling them a good story; it's both in the interest of the exchanges, the community and the token holders to avoid "hostile takeovers".
Now what was the need to block those funds - did steemit have more than 50% of the stake? Was the Steem "democracy" built upon a gentlemans agreement that SteemIt would never abuse their power? In that case I can fully understand why the other witnesses decided to temporarily block SteemIt from doing what they deemed to be a "hostile takeover".
When some conflict breaks out, it's important to from the very start talk together, try to understand each other and discuss compromises - but the instinct often seems to be to retaliate fast, hard and swiftly, hence escalate the situation. The exchanges seems to have been doing a bad job doing fact checking and community outreach.
- Using tokens deposited by customers to support one part in a conflict, without consoluting the de-jure token owners ... not a good idea.
- Since it takes 13 weeks to fully power down, this also was a very risky move. What if the customers would try to withdraw their tokens? Such a move makes it even more likely, as some disgusted customers would be likely to want to withdraw funds, power up and vote against the exchanges.
- Possibly to keep up with promises given to the exchanges, now the Tron folks are begging for a quickfix allowing the exchanges to power down quickly. Changing the rules of a blockchain just so one party can keep up some promises given to another party ... I have no words for it, that's really a taboo, blockchain technology is not supposed to work like that!
- Perhaps the exchanges didn't understand the concept of locking funds - or perhaps they were promised a quick protocol change to unlock the funds once control of the chain had been regained. I'm not sure what is worse.
- A quick look, and there are like twenty witnesses on the list that are running the new potentially harmful .5-release, none of them have bothered filling out an avatar nor a one-liner ... I did a quick look into one of the witnesses and found no witness information at all. None of the old, regular witnesses runs the .5-release. To me, this is a pretty clear indication that whomever is running the .5-release of the software is trying to perform a hostile takeover.
None of the sockpuppet witnesses running 22.5 have updated price feeds even once. The issuance of SBD is whack, and it'll keep getting worse as long as Tron keeps governance from being undertaken by the community.
It's starting to fuck our money up, and we should be consulting counsel as a result. I don't expect polite requests to remedy the tort Tron is causing to produce results, since no other requests have produced any of Tron to date, including repeated requests to update the price feeds.
Lawyer up folks. This is gonna hit you in the wallet.
I seriously don't think any lawyer will be able to fix this mess - and the whole idea of involving lawyers and courts does not sit easy with most people in this community, "code is law". Perhaps it's a flawed idea to let the witnesses tell what they believe the USD-value of Steem is (or what they want it to be) without any kind of commitment.
Seeking a remedy is not necessarily fixing anything. It's just being made as whole after being broken as close as possible.
Maybe the idea is flawed. However, the system is set up for the price feeds to be updated, and when they're not, the Steem blockchain goes awry. What do you think is in control of rewards, SBD conversion, SBD printing, and payouts? The price feed.
It needs adjusting. Seeking redress of a tort is only necessary because assholes do you harm. Know a better way to get compensated for being harmed? Do let me know please.
The real WTF was probably allowing this "ninja mined stake" to exist without any safe-guards against malicious usage.
It's to be expected that many token-owners won't vote, it's to be expected that many token-owners will have tokens on the exchanges without bothering about it, but totally unexpected that the exchanges (except poloniex) would partake in such a move without doing proper due diligence.
The price feed is an average of the price set by witnesses, right? Or is it the median? It ought to be the median - in which case 20 witnesses reporting the wrong value won't skew the price too much.
If it's the average, a work-around could be that the active witnesses would count a bit on it and also report wrong values, trying to get the average right.
Well, now that you've chimed in, I'm sure everything will be alright.
You don't even know what the price feed does, or how it's used. Why even have an opinion if you know damn well your opinion is utterly insipid and without value of any kind whatsoever? Oh, you're shilling for your preferred overlord, and that's the point of posting your meritless opinion on price feeds.