I do not doubt for one second your ongoing commitment and diligent work for the community.

But I think that it is contrary to sound principles to fork away stake, even if you think it's the best thing for the community. How that stake came about didn't involve either of us, and neither of us has any rights to it. The threat that the power to seize that stake was extant is why the powerdown was undertaken, and I don't see that Stinc has any choice but to exercise sound business practices to protect it's assets.

While that doesn't prevent a fork, an honest fork, such as @elfspice undertook some time ago, wouldn't seek to take someone's stake. You might simply recreate everyone elses stake on a forked chain, and that wouldn't be theft.

However, I don't think that would improve the community, even if it was highly successful, because not everyone would bail Steem for NeoSteem, at least. The unforseen bugs and problems that would arise would be, in a word, legendary, even with highly competent and experienced coders. Lastly, the optics would not be great.

Given those challenges, I have to disagree that forking will definitely produce a new, stronger chain. I think it's remotely possible, but far more likely that such an attempt would not produce a better chain, and would harm to original without any doubt at all. Investors would either be extraordinarily predatory upon such an event, or absent for long enough to see how things shake out.

I don't think it's a good idea. I appreciate that I am relatively uninformed regarding involved people, assets, and schema, but I tend to start with principle first, and add those things to a sound base. Seems to me that more can be done in the extant situation before seriously undertaking existential alternatives.

I am not using existential lightly, as various ways such a scenario develops can simply end badly, and toss out babies with bathwater.

Finally, stake being sold by it's owners is why they have it. I'm not gonna protest if you sell yours, nor threaten to bail. @ned hasn't indicated the stake is being sold. He's stated - for damn good reason - that the stake is being protected from forking by being moved to exchanges. While that ain't good optics either, I don't see he has any choice at all, given that taking it has been proposed by folks credibly able to make that happen.

Please consider that US law requires corporations to maximize investor returns, and the CEO that allowed the principal stake of the corporation to be seized would be subject to criminal prosecution if they didn't undertake every possible means of protecting it.

Thanks!

Edit: I note from your post language that only threatens to create a fork absent the @steemit stake. Please realize that your language isn't a commitment by anyone else to not seize the stake. Moving the stake to an exchange doesn't protect it from being 'forked away'. It only protects it from being seized.