"...nullify his stake..."
This is factually incorrect. They could have nullified it, sending it to @null, but that is not what they did. Please do not repeat inaccurate misinformation. They set it so that it could not vote for witnesses, be sold, or transferred.
"...the only time we can intervene is base on the terms of the agreement upon sale of the property."
Which is what the witnesses did. Tron had purchased the founder's stake, which has never been used to vote for witnesses, and has consistently been claimed by Stinc, @ned, and @dantheman, to be earmarked for development, and used for that purpose since Steem began.
Tron began publishing articles stating Steem was going to 'migrate' onto Tron, Steem was going to be exchanged for a new token, and if stakeholders didn't undertake the exchange in a timely manner, they could lose all their money. Things like that indicated that Tron was going to do things with that stake like simply take over Steem.
Which is exactly what Tron did. All of Tron's 'witnesses' are just bots on one box. If anything happens to that box, wherever it is, the blockchain could crash, or worse. For days now I have watched the price feeds from the Tron puppets and our consensus witnesses. The real witnesses are updating the price feed, which is damn important. The Tron witnesses haven't yet since they were imposed.
Tron does not have the expertise to control Steem and keep the blockchain working, and Justin Sun has stated 'I just want to sell my Steem for profit.' Since he has ~100M Steem to sell, what do you think him dumping Steem on the market would do to the price?
Don't defend Sun or Tron in this matter. His actions have been despicable, and that's without even mentioning convincing exchanges to steal their customer's money and use it to vote for Tron.
So you saying I just bought 70 million worth of Steem and I can't vote for witnesses, can't transfer it, can't sell it and basically have it sitting on account at the discretion of witnesses??? What communist shithole is this???
Y'all fail to realize your criticism is with the terms of the sale between Ned Scott and if Ned explicitly mention that to Justin Sun and he went against that terms of sale then he did not honor the agreement.
This is capitalism, there was a financial transaction even countries go through this, people lose everything. The way things used to happen is often left in the past when the IMF takes over.
You know what surprise me here, the amount of people who brag about just how evil socialism and communism is and how great capitalism is but now we have a capital investment and they trying to defend the action as the excuse of a community. You take this to any court in the US and they ask you what was the terms of the sale between both parties and if Justin Sun was left to do as he wish, then you at the mercy of Justin Sun with the way he wants to move forward
That's basically right, but there was an alternative other than freezing that stake and, if one is going to quote using the legal system route, would have been for the witnesses or someone representing the witnesses to file in court asking for an injunction and freeze upon the money in question until they could prepare and file their legal argument(s) that the sale violated terms set between the owner and the those on the platform.
Justin could have just as easily filed against the witnesses in a court of law when they froze his stake because it is illegal to freeze someone else's stake, he could have done it with the right legal team that kept it narrowly focused on that point and that if the witnesses/platform had a beef they should file their own counter claim.
So the big question is really: Why is no one going the legal route to settle this?
Basically because everyone involved has been operating under the laws required regardless if you are talking about this platform or things pertaining to the rules and operations of the Tron platform. They ("everyone involved") are under some mistaken ill conceived notion that because the block chains are some new frontier they all get to ride around making up the rules, and they don't care who gets run over by all the horses, buggies and wagons. They don't want the scrutiny that's going to come down on them if they involve the legal system as they could all find themselves being slapped upside their heads.
That's pretty much the scope of it. In that regard it's sort of nonsensical to be arguing the what of's of the legalities involved when no one has taken them seriously before and from the looks of things aren't going to move forward doing it either.
Just my frank assessment of it all.
I don't disagree with you at all. I posted my opinion of the soft fork that day and here quote from that post:
Thanks!
One that respects the rights of investors to depend on the representations of people selling things. While you may prefer one in which anybody can say anything about whatever they're selling and no mechanism to protect investors from lies and fraud exists, I don't actually think that is the case.
You'd have nothing if you lived somewhere that failed to protect buyers from fraud and theft.
There'd be no law but force. Your only recourse against people that sold you some product that did not provide the benefits they claimed, or contained some harm they told you it didn't, would be limited to violence.
Is that the world you want?