my totally unimportant view of this. we could make a sister chain or he could sign a contract. if he really does not want to be the ruler of the chain he will not have a problem with it. contract that he will not use his stake for voting or witness manipulation. That he will continue development of steem for x time and finish SMT. apology for calling as all Hackers. No more crazy talk about steem coin swap and migration. Also their plan of development. All signed and checked by the lawyers. That would be a hard fork with no hard forks. Thik this would be ok from both sides.
Also important thing. talking to ex steemit employers. Do they want to work with steemit on development. they know the chanin the best.
As for exchanges, i don't know, i would like to see them sweat for a bit, but i think part of that pushing the meeting early was the pressure from exchanges.
With a sister chain @bil.prag, no need for a contract. The new chain developers are free to airdrop tokens as they see fit. In this instance, all the steemit accounts (and any related Tron Foundation accounts) would probably be excluded. The original chain would keep going with those tokens in place.
The question is where the community would end up going.
Posted via Steemleo
but if he is saying the truth that he does not want to use it, we have no need for all that. code it in, write a contract... no need to split the community...
That is the big question @bil.prag.
Trusting what is coded as opposed to someone's word are two different things.
We live in a world where people go back on their word, ala Ned. The reason we are in this situation is because the stake was not coded in when it should have been.
Posted via Steemleo
A contract with whom? We are a decentralised community. Who negotiates and legally signs the contract on our behalf?