Hello Justin
I can only represent the ~1m SP worth of stake I hold
I believe you committed to this venture in good faith and saw the potential in our platform. I was one of the few who did not support the initial softfork that froze your account. To the defense of those involved, there were certainly a number of somewhat alarming signs at the time that made them nervous.
If nothing else, this misunderstanding has made me fully appreciate the resources you wield and influence you exert, for example with exchanges, which is surely useful to us. Conversely, I hope you now truly realize the value of the impact an active and passionate community can have, even if we're a smaller crypto project. Imagine the things that can be achieved if we worked together rather than against each other.
This was a shaky start but working with each other has immense potential. I believe your sincerity in wanting to create value for both Steem and Tron, and have no intention of interfering with governance but only resorted to such actions to protect your own stake. I hope other Steem community members can agree with me here.
Either way I have always been against the freezing of funds regardless of your intentions, and hereby attest to the extent my stake allows (~1m), my witness votes will be allocated in a way that provides your funds safe passage out.
As far as I'm concerned, your keys, your funds. I find the effort of trying to seize them under the pretense of a series of vague representations made by Ned or Dan or whatever to be far too weak to consider breaking consensus rules for.
It's pathetic to watch.
I've tried engaging a few people on there.
They keep talking about how he tried to takeover the chain, totally neglecting the basic human instinct to protect one's property, and the basic fact that he only did that after we froze his stake.
We got people screaming like 12 year olds on Twitter. I'd like to imagine if Justin didn't have these powerful friends, he'd have been quite a story:
"The Steem community bullied an investor to give up his stake by freezing them, and then forcing him to negotiate under their own terms"
Sounds like its not a negotiation.
It's blackmail.
Rest assured, I do not support Justin's idea of bringing in the exchanges, but I am smart enough to understand that this is a pure case of causes and effects. We froze his accounts first, he went to the extremes by calling in favours to help him undo it. Why is this hard to understand?
I'd never support freezing a person's stake under false pretenses and then playing the victim afterwards.
Exactly how I've been seeing this whole mess @pangoli.
thank you for voicing it out on behalf of many of us who prefer to remain silent in disbelief of the behaviors and maybe hints of embarrassment too..world made of many kind..
Hear Hear.. Also I dislike the behaviour of quite a few people in our town halls; TRON sessions; Steem posts and comments making demands to Justin while some of our high SP holders are giving their support in a way no side will get the upper hand to our chain. I certainly hope these kind of comments and statements made by Trafalgar will knock some sense into out witnesses for them to start thinking in human and business terms and start a series of talks with all stakeholders to find and eventually agree solutions.
The truth. I hope more people start thinking about solutions rather than proving one party is evil.
So far, the Tron team has been clear about one thing; They don't want the witnesses freezing their stake again, and they're willing to back down from governance if an agreement can be reached. Only a few of our witnesses agree to anything at all.
You nailed it! Exactly what I see happening. A huge problem to come to some agreement. I still hope, but I start doubting more and more.
I personally can't agree with your statement, because all I see Justin wanting to do at the moment is lower the Power Down time to
3 Days, which would break the post rewards system, and removing down-votes, which I know you (and myself) are very fond of. I think down-votes have really cleaned this place up.Of course, I am just a small fish, but I will not be committing to any witness voting that benefits or doesn't benefit Justin. I will vote for what I feel is right from my gut.
Thanks for sharing your opinion though.
~ @CADawg
I personally also don't support those changes either, especially as a strong proponent of the EIP which I had tried to push for almost 2 years, not constantly of course.
I took him asking for safe passage out to mean under the current rules as the post itself made no mention of changing rules, although they were brought up before.
Notwithstanding, I believe upholding property rights and defending our already besmirched DPOS consensus system is more important than trying to prevent a dysfunctional set of post voting and rewarding rules.
In other words, the reputation that you can freely access and participate with your stake as long as you control the private keys on our chain (which we already compromised with the SF), is worth defending even if I think the threat is malicious, overwhelming and imminent, and I don't in this case.
Fair enough.
With regards to the safe passage for his assets, I have personal concerns. I do believe the stake was bought at a discount (probably because of the connotations), and since he's not buying from exchanges (like the rest of us), I feel StInc should still be held to their obligations, whether through code or contract (although I'm more of a one for code to be fair). If he had have bought it off exchanges and used it to vote, I would have no objection to it whatsoever. I will disregard the exchanges for the moment, because we can guess if
22.2was never enacted, he wouldn't have needed to do that. Personally, I'd like to see a bit of goodwill from custom_JSun (mind the pun) in the form of actions, because his words don't mean all that much now. I also believe he is trying to sell it as we speak, because Dan has already revealed that he has been approached.Maybe his stake should be treated as equal, but I still believe it is special. Even if it were put through the exchanges books at a fair price, that would have been fair, but the "deal" comes with the company.
Really, Ned is probably to blame for a lot of this mess. He doesn't want to talk to the community anymore, and when he did, he was definitely talking at us rather than to us.
At this point, I don't know if I just wrote a crappy wall of text, let's find out 😛.
Kind regards,
CA
As to the Inc stake, I agree that obligations are assumed by the company irrespective of a change in board or shareholder composition.
So the issue is whether the stake was bound by promises to be 1. non voting in perpetuity, and 2. to be used for the sole purpose of Steem blockchain development for perpetuity, or until depletion; and if so was it right for witnesses to break ordinary DPOS rules to freeze them.
I have no doubt some general representations were made at least in the early years regarding certain restrictions to the use of that stake. I also have no doubt that some community members may not have built value and/or invested but for those representation. I'd even go so far as to say there was at least some level of deliberate misleading conduct on the part of Ned, of whom I'm not a fan.
However, overall I feel those representations were too vague, inconsistent and dynamic to form a binding agreement over obligations of such magnitude. I also don't believe the reliances made on them were sufficient, and there exists a strong argument that the community members and ex Inc employees acquiesced when Inc's attitude shifted to clearly state they were the sole proprietors of that stake. Either way, this case is far too murky for me to feel comfortable enough to support witnesses undermining DPOS consensus rules and directly intervening to freeze that stake. In crypto, general consensus rules (those that don't require manual intervention) are almost sacrosanct and operations should not be suspended for contentious cases.
Put another way: In terms of property rights, do I feel on the weight of the evidence there is such an overwhelming case for anyone else having a clear and direct superior claim over the actual private key owner of the stake that I'm willing to suspend the operation of ordinary DPOS consensus rules to directly have witnesses freeze/seize those assets without the private key owner's knowledge and/or consent? The answer here for me is a clear no, and my witness votes will reflect that. I'm specifically talking about this particular case, rather than a general rule.
Do I believe there's at least a weak but realistic case? Yes. But not one that's anywhere near worth directly intervening and undermining ordinary DPOS operations. I'm not a 'code is law' maximalist. But In a trustless system, you need to trust the system more. The witnesses flinched way too early on this one.
It may feel satisfying or even cathartic in certain ways and I can understand that sentiment, but this was not the right move and I fear it has done our chain considerable damage in reputation loss.
Your point of view is interesting, and you make some very valid points. Although, I'm still going to stick with my views.
@CADawg Out. 😄✋
|
|
🎤
It feels really good that the big stakeholders make such statements. Kinda shows that not everybody follows the big shouters who scream for war and terror. Good to see you pushing your values in this direction. Respect, again.
Agree fully, we shall not lock the funds of Steemit Inc; Although we shall come to some agreement with TRON and Justin that TRON/Justin will invest in building out Steem. In my honest opinion, this doesn't have to be financed directly from the Steemit Inc Steem stake/wallet. The money may come from anywhere; Costs to develop the Steem eco system is mostly in FIAT currency anyway and just having the Steem Wallet of Steemit Inc as the source of income to fund all expenses seems a risk to me; What is Steem values goes down in dollar value as it is been doing the last few years? Somehow we need to make sure, in writing, in contracts, in mutual agreed lockup funds (this can be in a trust fund for instance) the intentions of TRON and Justin wrt Steem and Steemit.com are verifiable, legal and eventually will be honoured.
I'm also for deescalation and I would recommend everyone to show some more respect and behave like adults. If I didn't know it better I would think that a good part of the Twitter community is not older than 12 years old regarding from their posts and behavior. Treating people and creating memes doesn't bring us anywhere.
Exactly... spam this to the chain...
The community has already proven it can mobilize and productively oust any witness it decides is acting against the best interests of STEEM, and the community can do that in a very short period of time. After what we've seen here lately, I don't think anyone of sound mind would support a witness who is willing to freeze funds.
This has been quite the learning experience for a lot of people.
I do hope many of the high SP holders have that sound mind; I do fear this may not be the case. Funds shall for sure not be lockedup by others than the owners. When we want to make changes to the chain itself including rights of funds, then this cannot be just a decision of our witnesses, this shall include the entire community. Note that at the moment we have 10 or 11 of our community witnesses in the top 20 that actually supported freezing funds. I also gave my vote to these witnesses, but not for their actions with SF22.2, but solely to make sure TRON is not able to change anything without some none-TRON owned witnesses agree with those changes.
Things will get sorted once we're given the opportunity to sort them out.
I can understand your point, but I am quite sure that this would result in a HF that will make this chain quite a bit worse (e.g., no more downvotes and 3-7 days power down period etc.) I just can't support that. If, on the other hand, we would get assurances that this wouldn't happen, I am open for it
Ofcourse not our witnesses can only run a one push button witness server. They can't and will not run a blockchain... with no devs... no funding... the only thing they are good at, is rage, and hunt a fellow human being into the ground, out of fear, for their position, power and money.
Ah yes, because Justins witnesses are doing much better atm. And we all know he isnt craving money and power.
Seems like we then need a third party here
He's interfering NOW you obsequious worm. Go fork yourself. Do it hard.
Happy to see voices of reason and I hope this letter from Justin is opening enough doors to be building towards a better future of steem. All the bantering has to stop and the building has to continue.
If one wants to see how communism fails in practice, they should come to steemit:
The main reason I quit was that crazy, crazy extremist ideology
How the hell do you get communism out of steemit?
Communityyyyyyy :D
Decentralized.....
But the power will be distributed to Curie, Utopian, steemSTEM to redistribute...
Communism 101
None of those things make it communism you wanker.I mean wtf your basing it on being communism because they like community, and decentralization?
Hell I could just as easily use your logic to show how steem is proof that capitalism and democracy dont work.
After all the lies and misdirection of Tron and SteemIt and with the promise of Swapping the STEEM token for a TRON token, plus changing the Power Down period to 24h... there's no way in hell the majority of the community will be onboard with Justin Sun's plans.
I say we make a Fork already.
Just let Tron and Justin create their TronIt Network, replace STEEM for TRONIT on the Exchanges and we, as STEEM, start a new Chain without that problematic Ninja Stake that equals to more Steem Power than all of us combined.