[IMAGE: https://img.3speakcontent.online/rlosgnao/post.png]
▶️ Watch on 3Speak
My response to Justins recent blog post: https://steempeak.com/@justinsunsteemit/progress-being-made
I speak on behalf of myself only, as the 3rd biggest community elected proxy voter & I am the 3rd largest Steem hodler on the entire blockchain.
I leave emotions out of things and think of business logic first. I am not here to be anti-Tron nor do I have any desire to continue battling you if you were to remove the sock puppet witnesses currently occupying our blockchain.
In order to move forward, you will need to retract your "hacker" statements. Now that you know the truth those statements should be retracted and an apology is needed.
Steem has lived with the Ninjamined stake, promised since day 1 that would not vote and be used for community development. Steemit INC (USA based company) provided guarantees to the community about how the funds would be used. We never locked Steemit INCs funds, nor forked him out.
As a show of good fate, I would like you to remove the sock puppet witnesses, so we can talk on the same level rather than from a hostage standpoint.
"Meanwhile we would like to reassure you that we intend to commit to Steem for the long-term and we plan to bring a lot more value to Steem than even the value of our holding. We see the potential for growth here for both of our chains is tremendous and sincerely look forward to working with you on an ongoing basis."
These are the type of statements Steemit INC made since day one. That is why a lot of investors invested in this ecosystem because we knew there would be funding for future development. I would like you to publically renounce interfering in our governance with the Ninjamined stake. These are not demands, this is me letting you know what I would feel comfortable with as a large stakehodler on this platform. The current 30% of the Steem supply is enough to cause strain on decentralized governance.
In the town hall talks, you said you would be willing to donate a chunk to the SPS (Steem DAO) to help fund development and further decentralize the stake, as always intended. This would lower the amount you hodl thus lower the threat of a possible takeover if you ever go back on your word.
You ask us to say we won't support witnesses that freeze funds. Asking us to agree to that spins the narrative. We can agree that we started off on the wrong foot, there were no ill intentions at all. Ned did a shady deal without informing you, and with the hostile token swap/migration marketing, lack of communication, Zion account voting SRs in, Ned keeping all this a secret, and weeks of time passing, the witnesses implemented an easy to reverse soft fork. I, OF COURSE, would NEVER support any malicious witnesses that went "rogue" to freeze user funds. I have never voted for a malicious witness and I won't start today.
Regardless of the thoughts here, we can agree there was no ill intent. We simply wanted to inform you of what you purchased and see how you would react. From there we can either fork if we disagree and move on or work together if the plan sounds good. At least we wouldn't be blindsided. So if users want to "fork" out your stake, that would create a new chain and we would have Steem and the new chain. I would not support anyone forcibly taking anything away from you nor anyone else. From the VERY beginning, we wanted to know your intent. This is all voluntary.
Getting exchanges to vote was the worse thing you could have done and I hope you understand it is best to communicate directly with us asap when you have concerns.
With all of this said, of course, I would not support any witness with ill intent, meaning to cause harm to our blockchain.
Once you remove the puppets, and you do what you say you're going to do in that open letter, I believe there is a shot at keeping the community here. Any funny business and it will lead to a fork and split the chain. I believe a fork is ineviable at this point, but I will never give up on STEEM, and I will always vote for community elected witnesses here. If there comes a day you retake the entire network and force us on tron, I will consider it game over and would move on at that point. But as long as we have community elected witnesses that have even a remote shot at getting in, I will stay here fighting the entire time. We just want our home decentralized, we don't want 1 person to make all the rules. So if there is going to be a fork, and you're publically promising to do the right thing, it puts us back at the same place we were with Ned.
I really dislike Ned. I don't really dislike you. I really disliked a lot of what you said and did, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt with the rough start. Regardless it does not matter what I think, STEEM is here, if you stand down and release our chain, let's at least see what happens from there.
▶️ 3Speak
@jagged | March 9, 2020, 4:36 a.m. | Votes: 1 | [
VOTE ]
I'm against making special rules for people who "push in line".
All of these deal makings were done in a corporate, NDA, style hubub, without talking to the community.
If they could have leveraged their intentions, without the protest of the community, they would have robbed in a truly opportunistic, venture capitalist, way.
The fact that they tried to barge into, and to control, the entire decision making core, just shows a lack of empathy to anybody but for their heroes; Greed, Ego & Big Boots.
This Facebook-esque type of behaviour could have propelled Steem into the limelight, and relevance, up the chart, like a rugby player tucking the ball under his arm and charging forward.
Steem may have wallowed into obscurity from a biased, inequatable power system - as it is still trying to evolve & morph into something relevant.
The power down system has done its job by ensuring there isn't any reactionary behaviour - which is awesome.
The controversy has really opened eyes within the community, outside of the community, and creates discussions as to what is Steem, what is Ninja mining, what development is required & in what direction, who should have an influence, is a hard fork necessary, is splitting beneficial in the longer term & many such great discussions.
The recent resignations provided those individuals a pivotal moment to reflect on where do they want to spend their efforts.
Existing leaders can now decide how they want to move forward, or backout, of their involvment in Steem.
The Witness ladder became so much more relevant/poignant than from the many articles I have read.
What a great crossroads that we in the Crypto world are experiencing.
It's right up there with many pivotal decisions made in history when change is forced upon groups.
@smooth | March 9, 2020, 3:01 a.m. | Votes: 6 | [
VOTE ]
That would be not offer any real protection against someone going back on their word because the stake can always be moved to other accounts to vote. In the case of exchange accounts which are normally kept liquid, this can be done instantly, and in the case of exchange accounts that are now powering down, they will soon be able to do the same.
There was a good reason that the soft fork restricted transfers as well as voting, because that is the only effective way to guard against the stake voting, as well as guard against the stake being powered down and whisked away, leaving nothing but empty words and broken promises in its place.
Witnesses who ran something so easily circumvented and insecure as a mere vote block without a transfer block would demonstrate lack of understanding of the relevant blockchain mechanics and would certainly lose my confidence.
The ninja-mined stake needs to remain where it is so that there is continued transparency and the community can continue to exercise oversight against bad actors who do not do as they claim they are going to do, and instead attempt to just pocket the funds and run off, as we unfortunately and carelessly already allowed Ned to do. Stakeholders and witnesses are currently in a position of "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me."
Of course, it can be withdrawn and spent at a reasonable rate as long as funding to develop the ecosystem is maintained (as Steemit did, albeit even then incompetently, at least up until the sham "layoffs"), and as Dan mentioned in the post, SPS can be part of that.
One possible compromise is Justin can own the Steemit Inc stack that he purchased outright but only after a certain length of time. For the sake of argument, let’s say that length of time is agreed upon to be 5 years. It could then be hard coded into the next fork so trust is not required anymore.
The way I see this coded is a continuous line with 0% ownership on day 1 and 100% ownership on day 1825. If on day one, Justin powers down, 100% of the power down goes to the SPS. If after 1 year, 80% goes to the SPS, and 20% he can keep. And so on.
Neither side will like this compromise, which indicates to me that it is likely fair. The biggest negotiable would be the length of time.
This Compromise has several benefits. The first is it is coded so it removes the trust factor. The second is it is a win-win mutual compromise for both sides so we can move on from this together as one. A split of the chain is not a good idea, especially when the exchanges are likely to side with Justin.
This is a win for Justin because there is now an agreed upon time that he can get his “full ownership”. The lost is it will not happen tomorrow.
It is a win for the community because this keeps the chain together and hard codes the trust out of the agreement. It also keeps Justin’s skin in the game. If he wants a return on his investment, he will need to develop it over this time frame. This also gives the steem blockchain more time to dilute the initial mined stake, reducing governance concerns when this stake becomes free for Justin to use as he pleases. It is a lost for the community because eventually Justin will gain full control over the stake.
No one will like this, so let’s all agree that it is truly a compromise.
>During the acquisition justin would not clarify to the community what his intentions were with the SteemIt funds
Imagine if Zuckerberg sold Facebook, would the new owner have any obligation whatsoever to you or any user to tell you what his plans were?
>nor would he acknowledge the prior agreements made between the community and SteemIt regarding those funds
Those prior 'agreements' were a joke, Ned used that stake how he pleased, and nobody said anything when he cashed out $30 million dollars worth to his personal bank account, or used them to vote in and out witnesses of his choosing.
> like how they would not be used to vote.
They have been used many times, how do you think @freedom was powered up?
>The duly elected witnesses agreed that this back-handed deal and justin's silence on these important matters was a threat to the entire Steem community and made a last-resort decision to temporarily freeze SteemIt's funds until we could get some answers.
Of which they had no right to do, Justin bought something, and because of something he might do, they effectively stole his money.
Saying that they would give it back after gaining assurances, is essentially blackmail. If I take something of yours and say I'll only give it back if you do something for me is extortion, and is wrong (and illegal).
>If Justin thought this was an unjust decision, he could have taken the moral high ground by appealing to the community to vote for his witnesses and reverse the soft fork.
True. However that is like saying; you should have reacted better to me punching you in the face.
>His actions and those of the exchanges go against the basic principles of decentralization.
First of all, as I've said in many articles, Steem isn't, and never was decentralised. The Steem IP is owned by Steemit Incorporated, a company registered in the United States.
The Steem blockchain is controlled by 20 witnesses who were voted in by the Steemit witness @freedom, without those votes, they would not have been top witnesses.
Decentralisation as far as Steemit's concerned, is an illusion at best.
Don't forget, that anyone with enough money could do what Justin's doing at the moment. Maybe that's what you mean by democracy, if you have enough money, then you're in charge.
>He has another chance to take the moral high ground by removing his sock-puppet witnesses and returning power to the community.
You mean give power to the community for the first time. Because as I've mentioned a few times now, the only way to be a top 20 witness in the days of Ned, was to have his vote via the @freedom account.
So you see, there's a lot of misinformation surrounding this subject which is getting repeated over and over again. we need to move past all of this, and start making moves to make sure this place doesn't die.
Cg
Detailed Summary of TheyCallMeDan Episode
In this episode, the host discusses the recent events surrounding the acquisition of the ninja-mined stake on the Steem blockchain by Tron and its founder, Justin Sun. The host provides a comprehensive overview of the situation, highlighting the key points of contention and the community's response.
The Acquisition and Community Concerns
The host explains that the purchase of the ninja-mined stake, which held a significant amount of voting power, caused a mix of excitement and nervousness within the Steem community. The stake's voting power was nearly twice that of the community-elected witnesses, raising concerns about the potential for a takeover of the network.
Lack of Communication and Hostile Actions
The host criticizes the lack of communication from Ned, the former Steem CEO, and the absence of any acknowledgment or explanation from Tron or Justin Sun. The host also condemns the hostile marketing tactics employed by Tron, including talk of token swaps, migration, and the claim that all Steem dApps would move to the Tron ecosystem.
The Witnesses' Intentions and the Soft Fork
The host explains that the community-elected witnesses only wanted to implement a temporary soft fork to have Justin Sun acknowledge the history and purpose of the pre-mined stake he had acquired. The host emphasizes that the goal was not to take away the funds, but to ensure that Sun understood the promises and commitments associated with the stake.
Disrespect and the Community's Response
The host expresses that the Steem community, the witnesses, and the Steemit Inc. developers were disrespected by Tron's actions. The host notes that the community's voting power increased from 45 million to over 90 million, demonstrating their resolve to protect the network.
Tron's Actions as a Cyber Attack
The host characterizes Tron's actions as a "cyber attack" and a "civil attack" against the Steem network, involving the creation of multiple fake nodes to gain control. The host states that it is difficult to engage in negotiations when the community is being attacked and held hostage.
A Mutual Path Forward
The host acknowledges that Tron's actions have been that of an "enemy," but expresses a willingness to give the benefit of the doubt and find a mutual path forward. The host suggests that Tron should remove the sock puppet accounts, consider donating a portion of the stake to the Steem Power Savings (SPS) fund, and publicly acknowledge the history and purpose of the pre-mined stake.
The Host's Commitment and Determination
The host, as a significant stakeholder and supporter of the Steem blockchain, expresses their unwavering commitment to fighting for Steem until a potential hostile takeover by Tron. The host is willing to support a decentralized fork as a last resort, but remains determined to continue the battle for Steem's governance and decentralization.
Notice: This is an AI-generated summary based on a transcript of the video. The summarization of the videos in this channel was requested/approved by the channel owner.
