"Ned himself said they Steemit Inc do not owe anybody anything."
I don't give a damn what the guilty party has to say. It makes 0 sense that you would.
Stinc stake was never legitimized, simply tolerated to a point.
If it was legitimized Ned wouldn't have hidden millions of steem in exchanges.
He knew he had to run.
Witness inaction at that time doesn't mean anything except that they were lazy and inert when they shouldn't have been so.
Personally, I foolishly wanted to believe that Ned had at least some interest in ensuring the success of Steem. He co-founded the thing after all. I think many people had a similar opinion.
When Ned showed that we were indeed fools for trusting him, and that our hope was useless, it was clear it was time to take action. I agree this should have been done long ago, but it was done today.
If it didn't happen today, the same thing would be said in the future about it should of having been done sooner or that witnesses were just lazy.
There is no legally binding document or protocol-based evidence Inc stakes belong to the community. Some announcements of roadmaps or blogposts of a companies intentions don't mean anything. Companies, especially startups pivot all the time.
Most importantly I don't like witnesses acting as a central bank and taking measures that affect the funds, regardless whose they are. I hope this is just a negotiating tactic and produce some meaningful results without diminishing the confidence on the chain.
Pivoting, once you have given your word, is called lying where i grew up.
No doubt ned was not reliable.
Anybody that can tolerate associating with that kind of energy is suspect, imo.
Doubly so when it pronounces the demise of three years of my work.
I don't much like this, either, but i would rather see js prosecute ned for fraud than to allow ned's lies to wreck the chain.
Which may be the intended outcome.
He's got his ball and has gone away.
Well, is thats your approach, there is no legally binding document that says that the witnesses cant do this soft fork either....
Wanna play hard ball? it goes both ways.
lol, expressing an opinion is playing “hard ball”?
My reservations are very simple, all funds should be safe and secure for the chain to be reliable.
I don’t have a strong position one way or the other. Just trying to make sense of things. As I read other comments I am learning more.
Feel free to play ball elsewhere. :)
I wasn't referring to you lady, but to Justin Sun, we can either play the game in a moral and ethical dimension or a legalistic one.
What Im saying is that you are denoting any other agreements that are not legally binding documents as invalid and irrelevant, and if thats the case, then why should the witnesses follow anything but strictly legally binding contracts?
See my point now?
Checkmate.