No, the reason it's not considered for the freedom account is freedom didn't promise to use his stake solely for onboarding and development of the Steem blockchain, then go back on that promise. Steemit did make that promise, and a lot of the large stakeholders relied on that stake when making investment into this chain and staying with it.
In simple words, Steemit claimed their corporate stake was a development stake, and Steem investors depended on that dev stake's usage when making investment decisions. Freedom never made such claims.
This also applies to the individual stakes mined by Steemit devs (and Ned's personal stake): none of that stake was frozen, because they never claimed that stake was dev stake, it was clearly always personal stake.
Do you seriously believe that Justin will consider using the stake for development? He just paid millions for it (I am guessing, market price).
What if he uses some Tron to pay for developments, to make his stake worth a lot more?
The problem is voting rights, and the centralization of the chain. Please don't try to make him use the stake as a development stake. He'll never go for it and we'll end up with a hard fork.
Yes, I do. And that's based on much more knowledge of the terms of the agreement than most people have, as I was a minority stakeholder in Steemit Inc.
From his point of view, it can still be a win: by donating to the SPS, he can say he's decentralized the chain, and at the same time Steemit can still make proposals to do the development, essentially getting a large portion of that stake back. This does force the stake to be used for Steem development rather than Tron development, but that's kind of the point, from the community perspective. Trying a fork without any community support looks like a much worse alternative for him, IMO.
By all public accounts (and I know of no contradictory non-public information), what he bought was a company, and if that company owns development non-voting stake, then it is still development non-voting stake after he buys the company. Nothing changes by just changing the names of the shareholders.
If something about the company is not what he thought it was, that's an issue for the parties to that transaction to work out, and not our concern.
We don't even know that to be the case though. For all we actually know, he could have been fully aware of it being development non-voting stake and there is really no issue here beyond working out the details of how that gets enforced. Personally I hope that is the case, but, like you, I don't know.
Unless you do actually have some relevant facts to share. If not please stop making things up.
Some just dont want to accept that simple fact. It is his problem he didnt do his research.
Yes, I can't accept this fact. In my opinion, the promise was broken when Ned sold the stake. But I see where you come from. It is debatable.
Im not following..
Yes Ned broke the social contract thats why witnesses are enforcing it now with code.
What I am saying is that Ned broke it, so it's broken. Done. Not Justin's problem.
I understand you don't agree and I get your point.
So if i break a law that means the law is now invalid because i broke it?
Im trying to understand what your point is here.
Yes, Ned broke the promise thats why soft fork was introduced so no one else can break the promise.