You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steem Protection Soft Fork 0.22.2
yes. I read all.
I think this soft fork is a little bit coercive. This post includes stakeholders, even if you guys discussed on private room.
This statement has been co-authored by the Steem community, which includes witnesses, developers & stakeholders. - https://steemit.com/steem/@softfork222/soft-fork-222
How many people included on discussion? 10? 20?
If you want to write this way (co-authored by the Steem community, which includes witnesses, developers & stakeholders), I think you should invite some stakeholders more on your discussion room at least.
How many people include on this discussion and decide? I think it is better to tell community the numbers involved in community decision making.
So you are just upset that you personally were not invited?
There were over 65+ people in there representing their witness voters.
If you don't like the way Steem governance works, I really suggest you rethink your decision to be a part of the Steem network.
Maybe do a little more research into how Steem governance works, how witnesses are elected, and how a majority consensus decision can change EVERYTHING about Steem.
I find it hilarious that the Steem users that put in very little effort into improving Steem for everyone somehow think they should have been included directly in the conversation. Guess you must REALLY hate politics?
I didn't know the number of people discussed this soft fork. Most of people on community suddenly hear softfork 0.22.2 news. I point out that.
I already know steem, how to elect witness.
Also, I disagree this soft fork. Ok. I vote the witnesses who disagree softfork 0.22.2.
I proxyed my power to @proxy.token. This account disagrees softfork 0.22.2.
Good job for actually doing something!
Now go about your business and keep trying to get support for others. Have a good one!
Steem on!