RE: Justin Sun and The Steem Honey Badger
HF 22.2 did not have my support when it was first introduced into production. That said a lot of water has passed under the bloody bridge.
HF22.2 was not a solution. It was a gun being pointed. The escalations have shown that there is no putting this back in the box.
HF22.2 broke the trust of the blockchain, so we are only talking degrees of ethics when it comes to ownership at this point. It seems on the blockchain possession may be ten tenths of the law.
Send the Ninja Stake to @null. It is not a software solution yet it will tell anyone thinking of a hostile takeover what the cost could be.
Beyond the ethics there will be the breakdown in aspects of the network. That should be the focus and not trying to play games with rich kids.
@null|Mr. Sun
At least it is a suggestion. I am just in a quandary. Boils down to me, and I have said it many times, better the devil you know.
I did not support the SF either, but that is not what broke anything. 22.2 was a symptom, not a cause. The sale of Stinc and @ned's stake preceded 22.2 and constituted proximate cause for 22.2.
For four years @ned, Stinc, @dantheman, and principals involved assured investors that the founder's stake was earmarked for development, and would not be used for governance. For four years those representations were followed, and investors relied on them. The sale reneged on those assurances, and Tron presently claims NO such restrictions apply to their assets.
Sadly, this is SEC bait, and Steem will suffer the consequences of @ned's failure to negotiate legal limitations on applications of stake sold to investors by parties that possess overwhelming majority stakes, and their duty to uphold their representations regarding use of that stake.
Again, I will reiterate here that all Steem was ninjamined. The founder's stake is not different from any other Steem in this regard, except that rewards based on inflation created new Steem since. There is not even any point in discussing the ninjamine, except that the founder's stake constitutes an overwhelming majority of stake, and thus subjects it to specific limitations.
Whether you bought your stake or not, that stake was ninjamined or created by inflating that ninjamined stake. All Steem was ninjamined. Sending ninjamined Steem to @null will either destroy all Steem extant, or simply be a pretense used to eliminate the founder's stake. Best reword that call to action IMHO.
If we are truly decentralized and consider ourselves outside of a central authority, then put the Ninja Stake down like a rabbit dog. @null|Mr. Sun
Please note that ALL STEEM was originally 'ninjamined' into existence. Thereafter the only Steem that has been created was via the rewards pool. Any demand to send all ninjamined stake to @null is a demand to send virtually all Steem to @null.
Please avoid using this language to refer to the founder's stake, as that is actually what you mean to refer to, and not all other stake that was ninjamined into existence, and upon which the Steem community is dependent, and cannot exist without.
To be clear, the STEEM which was in the following wallets at the time of 22.2's deployment:
misterdelegation
steem
steemit
steemit2
steemitadmin
I do know which Steem you meant to refer to. However, using the term ninjamine refers to all original Steem not generated by the rewards pool. There are folks that don't understand that.
Also, by making the mining of Steem an issue justifying forking off those accounts, you're making an argument for forking off every other whale on the platforms accounts. No point in making that argument at all.
The only reason the founder's stake is at issue is that the founder's repeatedly said they wouldn't use it for governance, and didn't, and also that it would be used for development, for which it was, until Tron bought it. That's the actual issue, and making that argument doesn't threaten anyone elses stake, because it doesn't apply to anyone elses stake.
Point well taken. 👍