Okay, but there was also evidence and discussions about Justin having overthrown Tron's governance in the past to get his code through and that he actively planned to move steem over to tron and it only being a token on the network rather than its own coin which would've make the security of the chain even more questionable.
I'd say that evidence was more prominent than what you mention here
There was evidence back then that they had some intention of making things work and working towards mutually beneficial goals.
I was someone who at the time welcomed Tron and thought let's do what we can with the cards we were dealt, attempted to ignore his reputation in the space, etc, but when the time came where he'd throw those plans around in interviews and through his exchange, and his spokesperson barely acknowledged our fears of the future of the chain, he didn't give us many options. That said I don't agree with how you stated in the end of the comment that "we" wanted to completely eliminate the ninja-mined stake, if that was the case we would've probably done so when Hive was created. It also paints the picture that everyone who voted for the freeze was out to eliminate a giant supply of the token rather than wanting it to be used as had been made clear by the founders for years but never followed up on.
What it comes down to, in my opinion, is this, he was a sole actor with a lot of stake which he could control the network with, we were many block producers all over the world with different views, morals and visions of decentralization and freedom. Instead of trusting that the bp's who had kept the chain running for years wouldn't just flat out steal/eliminate his stake but demand gov to be left alone and the promise the founders had made with it to be followed, he decided to go on the offensive even harder (yes I admit the freeze was an offensive albeit more defensive move) and overthrow gov in the worst way possible that shook the whole crypto space.
If witnesses had gone through with eliminating the stake it would've caused a huge backlash and potentially ruined the community forever so I don't believe that was ever an option and I personally wouldn't have voted for such code. Similarly I respect your decision to not even vote for the code to freeze the tokens temporarily but again it seems like you're saying that's the sole reason you weren't able to make it back into top20 which looking at @smooth who also stepped down at the time shows that it potentially wasn't just about that. I kept my vote for you for a long time after the fork but I'm a bit hybrid when it comes to voting for witnesses so to me personally it just felt like you weren't around as much any longer as you were back then, not because of you not joining the majority in freezing the stinc stake.
That's kind of the issue I had with your initial comment so just wanted to make my memories of what occurred clear.
Hope you're doing well and to see you more active again at some point!
There is quite a bit to hash out in terms of what happened back then :) Freezing the stake was the first step, but I talked to enough people at the time (top witnesses and large stakeholders) to read between the lines and know that there was never really a plan to let them have their tokens and do as they wish with them (even if they made a "promise" to abstain from governance voting).
I think this quote from you nails it: "wanting it to be used as had been made clear by the founders for years but never followed up on". They purchased tokens legally in an OTK deal from Steemit, Inc. along with the purchase of the company. There was nothing in that purchase agreement that restricted the use of their tokens. Any "loose promises" that were made between the original founders and the community were never communicated to them, and I did not see it as the witnesses role to enforce that pseudo-agreement on a new stakeholder who did not take part in the original agreement and arguably had no knowledge about it at the time they purchased the tokens.
The security of the chain was really the only valid argument that I felt was being made at the time, and I personally did not buy into the train of thought that the token freeze was the only play for that. Whether that was the right or wrong decision on my part is up for debate, but I still feel that it was the right choice for me to make at the time given what I new back then.
You are right though, there were other factors at play. I had a new job and wasn't able to spend as much time keeping up with all the activities as I used to. After I was voted out and I opened up conversations with some of the larger stakeholders about the possibility of getting back in, I could tell it was going to be an uphill battle. Sides had been chosen and I hadn't gone as far as joining the other side (like some of the witnesses at the time did) but I definitely wasn't seeing as being on the "right" side either. Based on everything that was happening at the time I decided it would be best to accept my position as a backup witness and move on with my life.
I'm still quite actively "lurking" and fulfilling what I feel is my role as a backup witness. I keep my node up to date, price feed active and accurate, and monitor the "pulse" of the community for anything important.
Yeah that's the thing though, just because you sell tokens that were unfairly mined (on top of personal stake earned in a similar fashion) doesn't mean you can just ignore the fact and sell them off and put the burden onto a new person.
It is a reason Dan left from what I've understood while Ned attempted to just ignore it and hope stakeholders and witnesses who made decisions based on the promises of how that stake would be used, would just forget about it.
That said ned is the real culprit cause I doubt he mentioned any of this or maybe he did and is the reason why only someone with an already shady reputation was the only one that took the deal.
Oh well, all in all we definitely came out better and whatever collaboration or intentions sun may have had proved to be nothing considering the state of Steem today.
The harm of launching things unfairly and then trying to make up for it with empty promises is definitely something others should avoid. Even if this unfair start made it harder for hive's distribution, there's been plenty of time for curators, buyers and sellers to balance it now.
The further back in history we go, the murkier and darker it gets hehe. I tried to do my own research into what exactly was "promised" and how official it was, and I wasn't really able to turn up much beyond vague statements that were made in places that nobody could actually verify. I have little doubt that some shady stuff happened back then, as well probably when the sale took place. As you said - if Ned didn't mention any of this to the buyer then that by itself is pretty shady, and if he did - well then the fact they knew and didn't honor it is shady too - lol.
All is well that ends well though, and like I said before - I'm pretty happy how everything turned out. I'm still on good terms with everyone that is important to me, even if we don't talk as often as we used to. Even the stakeholders who stopped voting for me I have no hard feelings about. We all made our own decisions at the time for what we thought was best for the chain + community.