RE: Steem Town Hall - Today in 1 hour
Regardless of your pejorative assertions, @justinsunsteemit purchased a specific asset which has specific capabilities and limitations. He cannot now simply pretend it is something else.
It is what it is, and as it's owner he is obligated to honor what it is.
In the run up to the launch of the public website during the mining process, Stinc, specifically @dantheman, said:
"For those who are doing the math, this means we have mined 75% of the STEEM held by current accounts.
For those who are worried about us dumping, we intend to convert it all to VESTS at the end of the week.
VESTS are locked up, non-transverable, non-divisible, STEEM that can only be unlocked via 104 equal weekly payments (2 years)."
This was an obligation Stinc undertook to limit it's use of that stake, which as far as I know they met fully. Just as that obligation applied to the stake @justinsunsteemit purchased, other obligations also applied, and some of those obligations remain outstanding and currently unmet in full.
Those obligations Stinc remains liable to fulfill, and as the owner of Stinc, @justinsunsteemit and Tron are liable to fulfill them. If Tron did not do as I did and research the public statements made by Stinc and it's devs prior to their purchase that obligated Stinc to specific liabilities, that's on Sun and Tron. As I have repeatedly pointed out, all that would have required to do is an intern and a couple pots of coffee to undertake.
You'd think a billionaire could afford such a trifling cost to understand an asset he was considering purchasing. Regardless of whether Sun did due diligence or not, Stinc is what it is, and what it is remains obligated to investors that purchased Steem from it in reliance on it's representations. Sun owns Stinc, and is now obligated to fulfill those obligations.
That's simply corporate law.
I don't think that quoted statement says anything besides that STINC vested their stake, and therefore the stake is subject to power down rules, which at the time took 104 weeks to complete. The protocol change to 13 weeks power down later changed that timeframe.
We are looking for statements that commit to specific uses or lack thereof of the STINC STEEM & vests.
I agree the statement quoted isn't the droids we're looking for. I just used it as an example of obligations applicable to stake, and pointed out that obligation had been completely fulfilled.
That's what should happen to obligations, such as those that were undertaken to fund development with the founder's stake, which I have provided examples of elsewhere.
Stinc undertook those obligations with that stake in order to enable investors to be comfortable with Stinc holding that stake. Sun bought Stinc complete with those obligations, and if he doesn't honor them the investors that plunked down their money for Steem based on those representations that Sun is now liable to meet, they suffer financial injury, which is actionable at law.
I provided that example of obligations being met to illustrate the principle that such obligations are undertaken to enable investment. This shows that investors depend on fulfillment of obligations. This creates a contractual relationship between obligors and obligees. Sun needs to fulfill the obligations Stinc undertook, because Sun is now Stinc.
But Sun did not do anything with the Stake !
The witnesses made a hostile move without warning and without provocation, a sneak attack.
That is simply a fact.
Sun took over all consensus witness positions - which Stinc has long stated it's stake would not be used to do. All the witnesses intended (although IMHO they did more than they intended by preventing stake from being sold) was to prevent that exact thing.
Not a sneak attack. Simply holding Stinc to it's obligations it has long made to investors, because Stinc has a new owner they heard saying different things than the former owners did.
Edit: also, I posted after the 'sneak attack' and counseled against it. I said when the music starts, you dance with the partner you have. I also changed all my witness votes then too.
I'm not an advocate of pre-emptive attacks, but I wasn't consulted.
@valued-customer
Id say it is still up for debate if there is legality toward these promises made by Ned or steemit inc
But don’t get me wrong, I’m not judging the witness choice of soft fork. I recognize why it happened, if anything perhaps I find it hasty...but I get the why.
In the same way I get the why of Justin reaction.
For me this is a call out for reasonable voices at the negotiation table.
I just framed it in my own butt way🍑