I read that “he believes there is a fundamental problem with the platform” is his official statement. It was also stated that it could not be corrected but my assumptions is that he could not personally correct them.
I found in many other users comments that he was a proponent of free speech very early on which brings me to assume he was more inclined with censorship and creating a less than decentralized system. This leads me to believe the problem he perceived was free speech and the inability to suppress a large stakeholders opinion.
He did however go and start another platform so it very well could just be the wall he came to while trying to make said change that pushed him away. Obviously he is still interested in the tech side of things but this could all be relative to income.
It’s a hard one to pin down on a single answer but it seemed to be a culmination of reasons but largely surrounding the platform not being within the vision he had for it.
Well honestly I think they both are, they did have a falling out relevant to the issues Dan seen with steemit so I doubt that moving forward on this project together would have been possible. As for what Ned is working on now, it seems like he is the genius behind the tech where Ned is behind the marketing. Even if Steem is just the social crypto that opens the door to mainstream I believe it to be a necessary tool in crypto adoption, look at how many kids spend hours on their phones watching YouTube or chatting on Facebook and Twitter. What I wonder about is if Dan will address the over complication of blockchain function and security such as mobile adoption and 2FA, this would be a game changer in my opinion.
This is a good question!
I read that “he believes there is a fundamental problem with the platform” is his official statement. It was also stated that it could not be corrected but my assumptions is that he could not personally correct them.
I found in many other users comments that he was a proponent of free speech very early on which brings me to assume he was more inclined with censorship and creating a less than decentralized system. This leads me to believe the problem he perceived was free speech and the inability to suppress a large stakeholders opinion.
He did however go and start another platform so it very well could just be the wall he came to while trying to make said change that pushed him away. Obviously he is still interested in the tech side of things but this could all be relative to income.
It’s a hard one to pin down on a single answer but it seemed to be a culmination of reasons but largely surrounding the platform not being within the vision he had for it.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Thanks for the easily understandable answer. I sometimes wonder who is in the right path! Dan or Ned!
Posted using Partiko Android
Well honestly I think they both are, they did have a falling out relevant to the issues Dan seen with steemit so I doubt that moving forward on this project together would have been possible. As for what Ned is working on now, it seems like he is the genius behind the tech where Ned is behind the marketing. Even if Steem is just the social crypto that opens the door to mainstream I believe it to be a necessary tool in crypto adoption, look at how many kids spend hours on their phones watching YouTube or chatting on Facebook and Twitter. What I wonder about is if Dan will address the over complication of blockchain function and security such as mobile adoption and 2FA, this would be a game changer in my opinion.
Posted using Partiko iOS