Meeting between Justin Sun, Korean Stakeholders, Steem Witnesses and Steem Foundation 12/03/2020

liondani (69) 5 years ago

$4.73

stellabelle (76) 5 years ago

so fucking true.

$0.70

distantsignal (65) 5 years ago

What a waste. He doesn't comprehend - or pretends to not understand - that the chain cannot be changed without consensus from the witnesses at large and so therefor no guarantees can be made.

I can't see this going well at all. He wants all these concessions but gives absolutely none in return. He wants downvoting gone, powerdowns to be in line with Tron, his stake to be given full rights with no guarantee that he won't use them to centralize the chain unless the witnesses can guarantee what they cannot. It's a poison pill.

I wish I had an answer or a horde of cash to unlock this stalemate.

For what it's worth, Justin is the one making the demands and he's asking big, making the witnesses come to him with concessions.

Witnesses / the community should reverse this tactic and make the big asks (demands) or the chain forks by a certain date, even if it's a year from now. We should put forth everything we want out of this and make him come up to our level. If we keep at this game, either an eternal stalemate or a gradual capitulation of the community will occur.

We should be pushing for what we want, not asking how we can get him to let up. We might as well be crying uncle.

$0.86

16 votes

rootdraws (66) 5 years ago (edited)

Reminds me of my relationship with my daughter's mom. MGTOW is the only solution I've found, and it kind of destroys the current relationship with daughter, but allows her emotional freedom from conflict, and opportunities for more wealth / security when she's older.

Be Tron's Bitch, or Fork it.

If Fork -- then, prepare to suffer for a few years, but ultimately hope for a more resilient chain and community.

Long term conflict and stalemates just drain energy.

Justin had the right idea -- in a detached from consequence / strategic analysis sense.

Go for a coup.

If you can't coup, then you enter war of attrition, which drains emotional and financial resources from all parties.

It's the old baby and bathwater routine, mixed in with a toxic power dynamic.

Seems like the best thing to do might be to not act -- HODL and continue onward, and wear out his patience.

$0.03

hobo.media (63) 5 years ago

That makes no sense. Justin is not asking people who might one day become consensus witnesses to announce that they won't freeze his stake, he is asking the current consensus witnesses to promise not to do it.

Saying that they must give a vague answer about decentralization is bullshit. These individuals cannot promise others will not produce blocks for a soft fork that freezes his assets, but they absolutely can promise to not do it themselves. And they most certainly can announce that they would refrain from adopting a soft fork that froze his stake.

I'm not saying I'm on Justin Sun's side here, I'm just saying I'm calling out the bullshit answers.

$0.00

distantsignal (65) 5 years ago (edited)

I'm sorry, but that's untenable promise and I think that's exactly what he's asking. he wants to ensure that he can do whatever he wants, and while I believe he should have his stake, he needs to make promises to the community that he won't use it in certain ways, namely to take almost total control.

The top witnesses may be able to "promise", but like you said, that doesn't mean the rest of the community will allow it. I would for one remove my vote if the power down was reduced too much. The exchanges deserve the bed they've made and reducing the power down time too much puts the entire network at risk. That's the witnesses point when they say they can't really promise that now or ever. They can promise to try. That's really it.

I would also remove my vote if they took away the free downvotes. I was wrong to oppose them in the beginning, and have seen their use better the network overall so far.

My larger point here is that Justin is making the demands, when it should be the other way around. I've done some investigating on Tron and it's filled with junk apps overall. Nothing but gambling apps and Sun controls something like %40 of the network. There's no reason to really believe it would be any different here. With Sun being able to move exchange stake in and out rapidly, I have a feeling the same kind of apps would spring up on Steem and ruin it.

EDIT: Also, I believe that the witnesses have said they would unfreeze it so long as they could come to an agreement about what he would do with it, which he refuses to do. So...

$0.00

hobo.media (63) 5 years ago

We're on the same side, I agree with a lot you said, except for the free downvotes, I'm with the Korean community on that.

Still, I really believe the best move here is peace. We should never freeze people's stake, freezing stake by 17 consensus witnesses will result in Steem losing all respect by the rest of the crypto industry. There is absolutely nothing fucking decentralized about 17 people deciding to freeze someone's assets.

We might as well let the current witnesses state that they themselves will not accept a fork that freezes his assets. He is fine with a soft fork that takes away his voting rights! That is a big concession. We will not get that without giving something else in return.

Its time the children stop being allowed to make decisions for this chain. Business involves compromise, and we need to give a little in order to get anything. Having the current consensus witnesses announce that they won't freeze the Steemit stake is a reasonable compromise.

It can be an "if" statement involving a prerequisite, but the consensus witnesses should give him that.

Everybody needs to understand how this will go. His stake is non-negotiable. Sue Ned if you want, but he feels he cannot just reverse his deal with Ned, which means he is stuck dealing with the Steem community. He will not simply give up his stake as a dev fund. That's not in the cards.

Also, Ethereum Classic is not a fraction of Ethereum, and Steem does not have a fraction of the pull with the top exchanges that Justin does. We can get seriously screwed here. I'm talking next to no liquidity... Will you care about a crypto platform with no liquidity?

Even if you say you will, I sincerely doubt you actually will.

$0.03

4 votes

karenmckersie (74) 5 years ago

Agreed! "We should never freeze people's stake, freezing stake by 17 consensus witnesses will result in Steem losing all respect by the rest of the crypto industry. There is absolutely nothing fucking decentralized about 17 people deciding to freeze someone's assets." 👍

$0.00

distantsignal (65) 5 years ago

No, I care about liquidity, but I do think it's okay to banish an exchange that acts irresponsibly or one the presents a serious conflict of interest, especially Poloniex, considering Sun owns a stake in it. That exchange, plus his stake is far too much power. I can accept a little LESS liquidity if it means taking exchanges out of the staking equation. We already have other exchanges hopping on board.

I agree his Steem should be unfrozen and that we have to contend with the faults of dPOS and I can safely say that as much as the witnesses jumped the gun, Sun has blasted trust out the window by using the exchanges to vote himself into power, which is what I think he would have done to begin with. He's demonstrated that he is far less trustworthy than he proclaims. He claims to want to protect the "sanctity of private property" but is more than willing to violate EVERYONE'S if it means getting what he wants. He claims to not want to be involved in governance, but won't remove a single sock puppet.

I'll believe he's willing to give up voting rights the minute he relents on some of his sock puppets. The witnesses have already said they'd unfreeze his stake, so we need to see him act in good faith to let the witnesses govern. They've been voted in and we need to see it through with them at the helm for now.

$0.00

tryp (43) 5 years ago

freezing stake by 17 consensus witnesses will result in Steem losing all respect by the rest of the crypto industry.

Doubt it, most of the crypto industry seems to be behind us atm. Plus in the early days of steem we were the laughing stock of the crypto industry BECAUSE of the existance of the ninja mined stake. You can find any nunber of articles calling Ned a scammer back in 2016 and 17.

$0.00

bil.prag (74) 5 years ago

if you are ok with no downvotes you are ok with this account https://steempeak.com/@indicate just scroll a bit and look at the comments.

$0.00

hobo.media (63) 5 years ago

I have absolutely no problem with self-voting and you really should not either. Do the math and you'll realize why I say that. Ultimately Steem was designed to reward in SBD not STEEM in a healthy economy, and SBD rewards is greatly related to supply/demand of STEEM.

Buying a bunch of STEEM to stake for self-voting may be "selfish" but it is still demand that shrinks the overall supply. It would take over a decade for someone to self-vote themselves an equal amount of STEEM than they had to buy to self-vote. That means these selfish voters are paying us all in advance for the privilege.

However, the solution to self-vote "abuse" if one decides to call it that never was downvotes. The best and most effective tool for this "abuse" was the payout threshold put in HF22. The payout threshold did a lot against self-votes. Now it really required the community's collective stake to reward at a good rate, since self-voting rarely got past the payout threshold and would be cut in half.

Don't believe me? I know, I sound like a terrible heretic saying this, but the argument that all that self-voting is bad for Steem because it reduces the quality of content is wrong when you look at the numbers. Since HF22 is Steem more popular online? Nope, its less popular. Because what really draws crowds to Steem is that SBD $$$ number looking big next to everybody's posts.

Like it or not, people staking to self-vote actually increase that number and that can lead to talented content producers coming to Steem to get some of those big SBD $$$ numbers. The self-voters and the bid bots were blamed for Steem's lack of progress, but that's all bullshit. The reason Steem never went anywhere was that nobody worked hard enough at promoting Steem.

$0.00

bil.prag (74) 5 years ago

The reason Steem never went anywhere was that nobody worked hard enough at promoting Steem.

100%

It would take over a decade for someone to self-vote themselves an equal amount of STEEM than they had to buy to self-vote.

but you are going on this from a point that he is losing his stake by self voting. because if he bought steem 6 months ago, self voted full for 6 months and sold yesterday he would have money invested + money from self voting. can't currently load his page to see who much he invested and how much he extracted from rewards.
His initial "investment" would be less worth only if shit like today happen, or everything crashes, or we all start to bot autovote ourselves. As long there is small % of people doing it, they profit and we are the fools for letting them do it. And yes i do agree that HF22 was a good thing to make it less effective. But again, all he has to do is set up bots and set autovote.

Ultimately Steem was designed to reward in SBD not STEEM in a healthy economy, and SBD rewards is greatly related to supply/demand of STEEM.

could be that self voting is even less effective in the healthy economy. I was getting almost nothing when SBD was really active, and we are in no SBD theritory for a long time, so i can admit i never did a real research of how all that would work.

$0.00

indigoocean (69) 5 years ago (edited)

So to sum it up:

Justin: I want you to tell me you will never freeze my funds again, to shorten powerdown time for me and exchanges, and to eliminate downvoting.

Various individuals: This is a decentralized blockchain. We can't control what anyone but ourselves will do, but [for the most part] we only see freezing funds as an emergency measure to protect the blockchain, shortest powerdown time that will work is still many times longer than you want (3 days), and downvoting is in the whitepaper but notes can be added in the UI and possibly eliminated once SMTs makes the feature redundant.

Justin: So are you going to publicly agree to this or not?

Justin's brain cannot compute decentralization. It has no meaning to him. There will never be a meeting of such minds.

$0.67

15 votes

lalai (60) 5 years ago

I fear your right, but hope your wrong. 😭

Posted using Partiko iOS

$0.00

v4vapid (73) 5 years ago (edited)

One of the points that came up in the discussion was about how Tron and co. believe that the exchanges should enable staking and voting on their own websites.

This is unacceptable and should never happen.

It's another way for the exchanges to exercise centralized power over the community blockchain.

It's simple, if you want to TRADE then send your tokens to an exchange.
If you want a SAY in COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE you need to have "SKIN IN THE GAME" and stake directly onchain.

They're suggesting a solution to a problem that is non-existent.
I have never heard a single person from the community request this feature.
It is completely made up as it allows for influence and power by exchanges.

CZ even tweeted that this would give Binance more influence.
More disinfo coming from these corporate zombies.

Interestingly, if we implement this vote feature, Binance users collectively will have, by far, the deciding vote. People who care may need to deposit to Binance to vote.

-CZ

GTFO !!

CZ March 8 VOting.png

$0.54

5 votes

bil.prag (74) 5 years ago

It's simple, if you want to TRADE then send your tokens to an exchange.
If you want a SAY in COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE you need to have "SKIN IN THE GAME" and stake directly onchain.

exactly my take on that topic.

$0.00

fknmayhem (71) 5 years ago

It is the only way of token interest he knows, combined with massive shitdrops.

That was also why he wants to increase witness rewards. In his, externally staked world, returns are given for staking but those returns come from the SR's production. The SRs actually reward for voting for then.

In other words: bought votes. Which, of course, is interesting to traders (but wouldn't be with our low interest rate alone).

It is interesting, and absolutely scary too, that for someone operating an almost feeless chain as well... he seems totally oblivious to the need for engagement.

$0.00

jarvie (75) 5 years ago

Sounds like a reason NOT to reduce?
We want exchanges to stake?

$0.28

3 votes

distantsignal (65) 5 years ago

Exactly! That would be terrible! They'd absolutely dominate the chain if they did. Say goodbye to distributed governance.

$0.00

jacobpeacock (73) 5 years ago

Folks need to realize that they have a boot on their collective necks and are 'coming to terms' with parties that have been holding them hostage for nearly two weeks now!

The option to decline transactions is the basis of the consensus mechanism and to thwart (or promise to thwart) that mechanism undermines the integrity of the trust folks have in the blockchain.

Anyone operating a node is free to run any software they want, so thus making promises is unrealistic as @distantsignal indicated in their comment on this post.

The big question that keeps occurring to me is: Why does Justin Sun (@justinsunsteemit) continue to fail at understanding the above mentioned items and that just because he bought Steemit Incorporated that does not magically entitle him to 'controlling' the blockchain nor influencing/disrupting its duly elected governance?

If this behavior was being done by any other company attached to a dApp that operates on the Steem blockchain...what would be the community response?

I know there are extenuating circumstances in this situation but I think that the above question is an important one nonetheless.

$0.26

lordbutterfly (78) 5 years ago

Waste of time.

$0.12

10 votes

manniman (68) 5 years ago

100%

$0.00

firstamendment (57) 5 years ago

Be careful about pledging anything. Sun is trying to get presumably binding concessions in writing without having to do anything himself. Gradually chipping away the witnesses negotiation tools.

Also if the powerdown is only a week or even 4 weeks and an account should be compromised by a hacker-it would seem that freezing accounts should still be on the table to protect private property. Instead of a week before the account starts being drained by an attacker, it can be drained in as little as 12-48 hours.

You need to lock down his stake. Otherwise he'll come in and powerup again and do what he wants when he wants-including destroying the steem chain when he sees fit. Work to Substitute his steem stake with SMTs that are coded do the same thing as steem-except vote, and burn the ninja mined coins. It'll be Sun's job to find a market for his SMTs.

$0.05

5 votes

valued-customer (73) 5 years ago (edited)

Freezing accounts is an inherent limitation of blockchains. It's nothing more than not processing transactions from specific accounts. While block producers can state commitments to not intentionally do so, the nature of the blockchain leaves that the only possible way accounts might be secured from freezing.

An almost unlimited array of faults might prevent transactions from being processed unintentionally. Since that's all freezing an account actually is - not processing it's transactions - there is no way to make blockchains inherently unable to freeze accounts.

The debate regarding freezing has not revealed that Sun understands this, and he may not grasp that witnesses are restrained by the nature of block production in their agreements to his wishes.

In the discussion of powerdown time, hackers are delivered more power to steal the shorter the powerdown is. Sun has just hacked the whole chain itself, and it is reasonable to conclude it is to his benefit to make hacking as profitable as possible, and his insistence on almost immediate powerdowns supports this, sadly cynical, conclusion.

While both these issues are very important, in fact the 30x weighting of stake the present witness voting mechanism creates has demonstrably centralized governance of Steem since witnesses were implemented. The issue has been vehemently prevented from being resolved for years with highly coordinated responses from the cabal benefiting from it, and remarkable manipulation of community perceptions to prevent understanding how it centralizes governance.

That reveals it's existential import to the Steem community, particularly now, after it has been used to seize control of consensus by one stakeholder with ~1/5 - 1/3 of extant Steem. It is easy to understand how 30x weighting of that stake enables complete control of governance. What is disappointing is that the legacy consensus witnesses that have heretofore benefited from oligarchical power over governance remain unwilling to fix this flaw in DPoS that threatens to completely centralize Steem today.

I have little hope that the choice between an upstart overlord and the legacy oligarchy will enable Steem to actually gain greater decentralization of governance.

Thanks!

$0.10

9 votes

notconvinced (61) 5 years ago

$0.00

askmihai (56) 5 years ago

Awesome viewpoint. It's good to see that there are down to earth people who are aware of the interest on our planet.
What is the interest so far?

So far the interest is control and less people are easier to... control and time is short so a good question might be:

How can we prevent dark times in good time?

$0.00

7 votes

valued-customer (73) 5 years ago (edited)

"User A has 1m Steem, casts 30 votes for witness, and wields 30M Steem influence over governance. User B has 100 Steem, casts 30 votes for witness, and wields 3000 Steem influence over governance. The difference between their hodlings is 999,900 Steem. The difference in the weight of their influence on governance however is 29,997,000 Steem."

This has always centralized Steem governance since witnesses were enabled. Stinc had the largest stake and therefore a compelling reason to implement this mechanism. However, the cryptic coordination of the largest stakeholders to implement an oligarchical consensus cabal has heretofore made voting Stinc's stake unnecessary - until it was sold to Tron.

It is this centralizing effect of 30x weighting of stake on governance that made the Stinc stake so dangerous, because that weighting prevented the smaller individually voted stakes from effecting the influence on governance their larger total stake represented. Because it is individually voted from many accounts, it actually influences governance less than the Stinc stake voted en masse.

This can easily be resolved by simply applying the time tested VP mechanism from ordinary voting to witness voting and setting depletion to 100% without recharge. This enables each Steem to influence governance once, and only once. User A has 999,900 more stake than User B, and would then have 999,900 more influence on governance, accurately weighting their stake on governance as a result.

However, both Sun and the historical consensus cabal benefit from 30x weighting of the largest stakes, and therefore neither wants to equalize the influence of stake on governance. In every mention of this problem heretofore those benefiting from this weighting have deflected, affected incomprehension, and dismissed discussion, thus maintaining their benefit from the mechanism by maintaining the status quo. Only now that the community sees the threat of centralization Sun's acquisition of the founder's stake represents has this issue become impossible to ignore, and actually better decentralizing influence on governance a possibility that threatens the oligarchy's extraction of the vast majority of Steem created through inflation.

I am extremely discouraged by my recent grasp of how thoroughly manipulation of the community - and of particular relevance personally, of me - has prevented greater decentralization of governance from being implemented, and the coordination that has been revealed between legacy consensus witnesses as a cabal with the largest stakeholders. The simplicity of applying VP to witness votes belies the duplicitous responses questioning the possibility of fixing the malignant weighting presently securing the consensus positions of legacy witnesses, and the flow of Steem created through inflation to the largest stakeholders it ensures.

The VP mechanism has four years of testing behind it already. There can be little question regarding it's operation and safety, yet whenever the solution is proposed consensus witnesses and relevant stakeholders retreat to puerile incompetence and make bizarre claims of complexity and unknown possibilities that might arise from applying VP to witness voting.

Overall, I am becoming convinced that a new chain that is fully distributed - not beginning with dramatically weighted influence from the outset - is the only possible solution to the dilemma that has now come to a head on Steem. I hope @theoretical is both clever enough to understand this, and intent enough on real decentralization, to undertake to implement both equitable initial distribution of influence and functional mechanisms to maintain nominal distribution in the new development they are beginning.

As a long time consensus witness, you may be aware of how these issues have impacted governance to a far greater degree than my rudimentary grasp, and I would appreciate any comment you might be willing to provide.

I appreciate that obligations and long standing commitments may prevent forthright discussion that might compromise your support from essential stakeholders for your position in the consensus. I do not intend my comments to be misconstrued as suggesting improper influence on you personally, despite appearances. I also very much appreciate your hard work on behalf of the Steem community, this transcript being but the latest example.

Thanks!

$0.04

6 votes

hans001 (59) 5 years ago

One developer making a new chain... doing what a team of developers had years of work that is not really a good beginning I think.

All chains had more then 1 developer.

It's not that he couldn't but a bit realism is in place here.

$0.00

valued-customer (73) 5 years ago

You're not wrong, but may not realize @theoretical was one of the developers of Steem originally, and that his former co-workers are mostly at large after having resigned from Stinc when Tron instituted the hostile takeover.

Just because the Sun hasn't set yet is no guarantee it won't. Nothing ever started with a committee, but new developments have always been started by an individual with a vision.

$0.00

creativetruth (70) 5 years ago (edited)

He got four questions answered, and he dodged each of ours.

The moderator was very biased.

Also, I noticed his questions were more like requests to fall in line. "Will you do what Justin wants?"

$0.03

5 votes

tngflx (63) 5 years ago (edited)

Can you guys even live broadcast the whole meeting? All thoughts and decisions are made when "so called reps" having a closed door meeting? Will it be so hard to broadcast it live on twitch for example? Or can we even integrate notification on steemit.com that signifies there's ongoing meeting? So we can all hear what witnesses are talking about? It's all fucking closed door. Only released to public when it all done? Where's community in this??? Hello?? we are still heree

$0.00

cryptopie (78) 5 years ago

Justin's demand is undoable and would kill this platform, the witnesses should do a decisive move. @ausbitbank

$0.00

maxsieg (57) 5 years ago

its so strange that the korean community is so eager about justins proposed changes. like they live in a complete separate community with own perspectives completely not influenced by us or us by them. so disconnected despite being on the same blockchain

$0.00

steemitadventure (66) 5 years ago

All I know after reading is sun wants what sun wants...he didn’t say anything about what steem wants etc. Huge red flag because it tells you he’s not interested...he’s just here to try to get his way.

IMO he has no interest in the community/steem he just wants to flip some coin and make few bucks.

$0.00

revo (61) 5 years ago

Absolutely nothing about how Justin will develop the blockchain (and fund that). Are we just assuming now that he's cutting and running as soon as he can powerdown?

$0.00

ausbitbank (74) 5 years ago

I am

$0.00

jacobpeacock (73) 5 years ago

I am as well assuming the same.

$0.00

smarthamster72 (58) 5 years ago (edited)

Justin Sun

$0.00

revisesociology (80) 5 years ago

@tipu curate

$0.00

tipu (67) 5 years ago

Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 0/3 - need recharge?)

$0.00

aagabriel (68) 5 years ago

Dat's a big Log

better get readin'

$0.00

roleerob (70) 5 years ago

Thank you for this update @ausbitbank. An immediate question I had was how these representatives were selected. As a Witness, for example, did all of you get together and elected roelandp as your representative? I think it would be useful for us all to understand. Thanks!

$0.00

bobinson (67) 5 years ago

did all of you get together and elected @roelandp as your representative?

For this meeting, Yes

$0.00

roleerob (70) 5 years ago

Very good @bobinson. Thank you for answering my question!

$0.02

mattsanthonyit (79) 5 years ago

Hope to see the video version of the meeting. Let hope for the best outcome.

Posted using Partiko Android

$0.00

avare (65) 5 years ago

$trdo

$0.00

trendotoken (58) 5 years ago

Congratulations @avare, you successfuly trended the post shared by @ausbitbank!
@ausbitbank will receive 0.13161488 TRDO & @avare will get 0.08774325 TRDO curation in 3 Days from Post Created Date!

"Call TRDO, Your Comment Worth Something!"

^{To view or trade TRDO go to steem-engine.com

Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site}

$0.00

jacobpeacock (73) 5 years ago

"Low effort post. Try harder."

Seriously thanks for sharing this. I found it highly 'insightful' to say the least.

$0.00

jacobpeacock (73) 5 years ago

After making that low effort joke and resteeming your post I noticed the difference between a high effort post of mine and a low effort post of yours as far as rewards go. I hope that you find the irony humorous.

$0.00

ausbitbank (74) 5 years ago (edited)

Yeah, it's unfair I agree. I stopped posting regularly ages ago for this exact reason. I'm not going to reject the opportunity for more SP while we're under attack. I didn't even self vote this post :P

(This is why downvotes are critical to find consensus on post rewards)

$0.00

jacobpeacock (73) 5 years ago

Yeah I saw the SP and figured that was what it was for.

LOLZ At:

I didn't even self vote this post :P

$0.00

hans001 (59) 5 years ago (edited)

It's unreadable people talk and talk..

In short.

Steemit inc is the developer of steem.
They have the keys and code to/of the chain.

Steemit inc is sold.. with their 25% pre-mined development fund.

All the developers are gone. Without development steem is dead.

The buyer want to cash out.

The buyer (owner of the development of steem) took over the whole chain. With sock puppetwitnesses.

The buyer took down the witnesses of his own chain.

Need to say more? Am I wrong?

$0.00

macchiata (78) 5 years ago

Sums it out ! even from previous interview, he mentions his intention clearly. And with the current circumstances, it would be hard to reach a win win situation.

$0.00

akumagai (68) 5 years ago

That was an interesting read.

Bastard sure knows how to dodge. He must be using weighted dice.

Posted using Partiko Android

$0.00

resiliencia (73) 5 years ago

Thanks for keeping us updated!
Keep fighting!

$0.00

coinchaos (63) 5 years ago

Ahh this decentralization is so refreshing for Steem. Good to see teams building. Now fight!

$0.00

eirik (68) 5 years ago

STEEM will sucks if Justin Sun wins.

$0.00

californiacrypto (62) 5 years ago

Well that was another shit show. No progress at all, I don't see this issue resolving any time soon like this.

$0.00

btcsec (49) 5 years ago

To cut it short. We cant let the man with such level of morality and such values govern steem blockchain.

Or any other chain.

$0.00

mondoshawan (66) 5 years ago (edited)

One Hour?! This is so sad, that Sun has not more then just about an hour for this subject. To me it shows, again, that too much money spills many!

[1:10 AM] Fredrikaa [Steempress]: I just wanted to say that many witnesses have clear answers to many of the 4 questions asked. But it is difficult if not impossible to have 1 rep share them all. I would hope that each gets the opportunity to share their own stance on each issue.

You hope to get an opportunity, really? Don't we are on a "blog"chain?

I'm looking forward to see every "witness" answer those questions in a personal post ASAP... Let everybody read your point of view on this!?! This is definitely gonna bring or take voters!

$0.00