[Discussion] Case Study of Steemit & Justin Sun Regarding Takeover & Ethics Exchange

Summary of what happened like this [1] [2]:

1. Justin Sun and Tron bought Steemit.com and Steemit, Inc. from Ned Scott in February. [3]
2. A few days later, Justin Sun and Tron announced an acquisition would be made but gave unclear and contradictory details.
3. Witness blockchain Steemit works together to do soft-forks to prevent Justin Sun from putting in new winess and maintain the existing Steem governance.
4. A week later Justin Sun and several exchanges voted for 20 new witnesses to make the soft forks made by the witnesses "previously invalid. [4]
5. Drama began to bustle because of the exchange using their users' steem to vote [5] and then several 'workers' who had been on Steemit resign for a long time.
6. Some exchanges begin to withdraw their voting witnesses after many protests. [6]
7. The Steem Community is trying to get support and bring 7 new witnesses (which have been around a long time) to get back into the top 20.
8. Add more resign from Steemit. [7]
9. Justin Sun tweeted that the Steemit blockchain has been "successfully rescued from hackers", which implicitly means that the witness "who did the soft-fork was considered a" hacker ". [8]

From here, there are some important points:

1. More money more power, sometimes it can just make a 'promise' team not to use tokens so ignored. The same potential problems can also occur on other dPoS blockchain. Or something similar, 51% attacks on the PoW chain.
2. Exchange can quietly have its own agenda and utilize token / coin deposits from users to meet their interests. In this case, a blockchain with the same model as Steemit might have the same risk. Even if they don't, they can do stake without the user's consent and take profits while the user doesn't know anything.
3. "Announcements" about hackers attacking the blockchain or maybe exchanging, can just be a diversion of the issue or even a parried to cover up something else that happens behind the scenes. It could be that hacking does not exist at all and exchange or other parties do something that if not 'straightened out' can make certain price / network blockchain collapse.

From some of the events and points I can conclude above, there are several topics that can be discussed:

1. In principle, the 'takeover' model that occurs is 51%. Aside from soft-forks, are there any prevention or possible handling of the same attack? Especially in the PoS chain, where on average there are pre-owned / pre-mined coins. What I can imagine is that the token for the team has been completely removed.
2. It seems that the transparency of the exchange is still less clear in terms of customer token / coin management. Apart from the visibility of voting / stake / dsj, are there other alternatives so that the exchange is not as arbitrary as in using tokens?
3. According to all of you, is disclosure about hacking necessary, starting from what happened, the evidence is dsm, and not just "we managed to overcome the attack on network X yesterday"?