RE: My thoughts on Soft Fork v0.22.2
Thank you for clarifying that he did indeed promise that all the stake would be used for development. With that clarification though does not come with the allowance of freezing the stake, that process has to be ordered by a court of law usually done upon request of a court action that funds be frozen until the dispute is solved through the judicial process. The burden of proof would fall on those filing the compliant that Justin was liable either via obtaining the buy/sell agreement through a court order to see if there was a stipulation in the buy/sell agreement or some other means that he knew in advance what the stake was promised to be used for. Barring any evidence of proof the burden would fall upon Ned to return the stake and/or face legal action to get the stake back.
If I were in any of you guys shoes this is what I would do. First I would attend his open invitation for discussion whether in person or some other video conferencing measure(s) to try and amicability settle your differences. Remember though that if he bought the company outright he does have the right to do whatever he wants with it even if he grants that he knew the conditions place upon the mine stake and moves forward to use it that way, (if he doesn't, like I said the burden of proof will fall upon the other stakeholders shoulders and still may require legal recourse), it's his option still to merge the companies if he wishes. In that regard he will hold the upper hand. Do you really know for sure he bought the mined stake? If he didn't then that opens it up to he didn't buy the company lock, stock and barrel and would to have had better than fifty percent of any governing board of directors to sell and if no governing board of directors existed then he'd had to have had over fifty percent of the stakeholders granting permission to move forward with the sale under the terms it was written under and/or their participation to revise the terms of sale until such a quota was meant to move forward with the sale. Like I said I would earnestly try and resolve all the issues and if a consensus could be reached make sure it's put in writing. Now if you can't resolve your differences then you guys need to find someone(s) willing to come out from underneath their rock(s), to be representative of all stakeholders involved and file the necessary paperwork to move forward in the legal system. Anybody or those willing can be representative but you could all agree to share the cost of litigation to relieve the financial burden from falling upon one persons shoulders. The same process can happen if it's found Justin didn't know about the stake and you moved to take legal action against Ned for it's return. Keep in mind that not all countries laws are the same so depending upon where one is at they may or may not agree anything I have said has in standing with them, regardless this is a US based company and all laws here are applicable not any laws in Timbuktu.
I am going to wish all of you luck, my hope is a compromise can be found and the platform can move forward in a more vibrant and cooperative manner for everyone. There is a great deal of a number of us with our hopes pinned high that this transaction would move Steem where it needed to be in a more productive and successful manner, that means there are a great deal of a number of us hoping for a positive resolution of concerns.
Best wishes to you all.
I suggest you read blocktrades' post about cryptocurrency forks. No one is making legal claims here, at least I'm not. People are deciding what software they want to use and what transactions they want to process, mostly on the basis of what is best for Steem, and what sort of substantive fairness, integrity, and consistency with stated purpose they have come to expect when it comes to usage of the ninja-mined stake.
You seem to think that you can force witnesses to process transactions they believe to be harmful and which they don't support, or that you can force stakeholders to elect witnesses who will do so. I don't see where that obligation comes from; they never made such a promise, nor entered into such a contract.
When you refer to freezing assets in the perhaps more familiar legal sense, that involves either physical seizure or an order (backed by the force of law, and ultimately, the threat of physical seizure) against a third party not to move or transfer the assets. In that case, yes, there is a burden of proof, legal process, and formalities that understandably must be followed to bring that use of force to bear.
That's also not at all what is happening here. The witnesses are voluntarily deciding what software they want to run and what transactions they decline to process. And stakeholders are voluntarily electing those witnesses, especially now after several days when stakeholders have had ample opportunity to vote those witnesses out, if that's what they wanted. In fact, stakeholders have, overall, increased votes for the witnesses supporting the fork and decreased votes for those not supporting it.
Anyway, I certainly agree with you in hoping for a positive resolution. But that doesn't mean that anything goes and we have to sign up for what many stakeholders see as a potentially devastating outcome by giving a potentially-hostile competitor controlling interest despite the stake the competitor is holding having been designated as non-voting. That is nuts.
Let's move forward to a positive resolution that works for Steem and that the voting stakeholders of Steem agree is positive.
Please reconsider this sort of us-vs-them mentality and phrasing. I'm not 'you guys', I'm a stakeholder just like you and for what it is worth I was not personally invited to the meeting. As as stakeholder, I support any effort to advance the success of Steem through meeting and discussions, though, to the extent it is productive.