You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steem Town Hall - Today in 1 hour
Do have a look at my reply to the OP, in which I copy and paste specific statements made by @dantheman that state restrictions placed on the Stinc stake that is what Tron and @justinsunsteemit purchased. They didn't purchase something without restrictions. They purchased what Stinc possessed, which had been alleged from it's conception to be used for a specific purpose, not simply unrestricted Steem that could be sold without obligation to subsequent investors.
I may not fully have an understanding of the situation, but, if there was an agreed upon limitation placed upon the stake by the previous owner, and that owner sold the stake to someone else, unless that someone else agreed to the restriction then the restriction no longer stands. Therefore, it should be Ned that everyone is pissed off at and not Justin Sun. If I was Justin Sun, and I just bought a metric $hit ton of Steem, and I own Steemit, I could care less about some verbal agreement that Ned made with the community years ago.
This is not my understanding of relevant law. The emotion assigned to different actors is irrelevant. What is relevant is the obligations undertaken by corporations and representations to investors corporations make. The fact is that if a corporation manufactures a car that goes 50mph, a purchaser of the corporation cannot claim the car goes 60mph, because it has purchased the car manufacturing ability the corporation has, not what it prefers to have.
There are no mentions of verbal agreements in my comments. All the assertions and obligations I discuss have been in writing, and public. Do consult counsel rather than rely on emotions to trigger your ideas. Substantive case law exists regarding corporate liability and representations to investors to base understanding of the extant situation on.
Again, as I stated, I may not have a full understanding of the entire situation, however, unless it is written in a legally binding document and transferable to any owner then it does not stand to hold up in court. Your comparison is invalid since car companies are bound by may "written" legal agreements by many governmental authorities.
Currently, Steem, a crypto-currency, still cannot be agreed upon in any country. There are no set rules governing the ownership and use in most of the world yet. This is a very gray area right now. If there are written agreements, and I am not doubting that what you say isn't factual or partially factual, do those agreements in deed extend to all future owners, over a specified time frame, etc? If there is such an agreement, then even the sale of said stake would be in direct violation of the agreement, if it is in fact legally binding. I tend to think that people of the stature and wealth do not go in to multi-million dollar agreements without first exploring their options and minimizing their risk.
Having said that, if there is no legal requirement biding JS from doing as he wishes with the shares, then it is the witnesses who have committed the criminal act. Personally, I am not for or against JS, I am for "ME", but I have the ability to look at this situation objectively and from a business stand point.
I note we aren't lawyers, and this isn't a court, so we're just expressing our personal opinions here, to little effect. Do note that verbal agreements based on nothing more than handshakes have been enforced by courts. The written assurances made by Stinc and it's principals exist, and do assure investors the founder's stake is earmarked for specific purposes and exempt from exercising governance, representations on which investors relied.
It is a truism that America is a litigious society, and this reveals the above facts are eminently potential of driving litigation.
Regardless, the facts of our present circumstances are that Tron presently exercises ownership of Steem, and allows the illusion the community possesses nominal stake to elect consensus witnesses by it's choice. Either Tron and the exchanges execute code which prevents them from exercising governance, or Steem remains Tron's possession.
The ball's in Tron's court. Either Sun executes that code and relinquishes ownership of Steem, or we will eventually either remain on his personal platform, or fork off.
I don't think he will, and I'm awaiting the fork.
I understand all of your points, but still I have not been convinced that, like him or not, Justin Sun is the enemy here. He bought something, people basically nullified what he bought, then they threatened to make it worthless. Unless I see official documentation that Sun agreed to continue what Ned had, as far as I know, verbally stated, then JS is just as much a victim of Ned's scamming the community than the community is. In this case I think that it should be Ned that everyone is pissed at and it should be him with his feet to the fire.
What if it wasn't JS that they were talking about forking out of what he bought but it was ours. Not so many people would be so eager to allow such a fork.
If assuming control of Steem governance isn't enough evidence to grasp whether or not Sun is the enemy of decentralized governance, then nothing will be.
Corporations transfer controlling interest all the time, and the corporate liabilities have necessarily been transferred along with the equity. That's how it works, and how it has always worked. Stinc continually and consistently represented to investors that it's stake would not be used for governance, which it was not, and would be used for development, which it was.
Both their representations and their actions demonstrated to investors that this was the case. Tron's purchase of that corporation and stake does not change this corporate liability in the least, and it doesn't matter what @ned said or did. Tron may have legal grounds to pursue remedies from @ned - but we can't know, and have no business asking, since Tron has revealed those transactions are covered by NDAs, which preclude our being informed of such details.
That means there's no point in speculating about what @ned did or didn't do or say in regards to this transaction, and even less benefit in concluding without any evidence whatsoever other than the statements of the new owner of Stinc that has undertaken sole governance of our blockchain without being authorized by anything other than it's present stake to do so, that it's all @ned's fault.
Frankly, it doesn't matter, and I don't care. What matters is the law regarding corporate liability, and that has been established for centuries in ways that are relevant to our present exigency.
Tron is bound by those representations, because are now the company that made them, and that's the law. They bought those representations when they bought the stake they referred to.