Steem - Are social contracts legally binding?

jrcornel (84) in hive-168689 • 5 years ago (edited)

The crux of all of this seems to be whether or not social contracts are legally binding...

Justin Sun acquires stake that was initially said to be used to develop steemit.com and steem.

It was the intention of the founders as well as the steemit,inc company to use the mined stake to do just that.

However, does that mean that they are legally bound to always do what they originally intended?

That seems to be the major crux of all of this.

How can we move forward if we can't really even figure out what we are trying to move forward exactly?

Most of the community seems to think that the stake is legally bound to do exactly what the original founders initially intended it for, but are they right?

It seem many in the space do not agree...

Including someone that used to work for steemit,inc:

(Source: https://twitter.com/Birdinc1/status/1236362651132928002)

And no I am not talking about Ned.

Personally, I see both sides of this.

On the one hand, as a steem investor and user, I would love it if that steem was earmarked strictly for that use case.

Though, I would venture to guess I wouldn't even know if it wasn't.

Steemit,inc has been a private company since day one.

They have never opened their books to anyone.

None of us really knows exactly what that stake has been used for over the past 4 years.

In fact, it is very possible that stake has already been used for all sorts of things that may fall outside the realm of "steemit.com and steem development" long before Justin even came along.

Which leads me to believe that it seems unlikely that the original intention of that steem is legally binding, no matter how badly I wish it was.

No matter how much I would like it to be legally binding, no amount of screaming from the roof top that it is will end up changing that.

A path forward...

Now, if that is indeed the case that the original social contract is likely not legally binding, we need to go about working with Justin on how to best move forward from here instead of just getting hung up on whether he can even use his stake or not.

Perhaps there is a bath forward that involves him restricting his stake for a period of time, or something of that nature.

At this point, I don't think he can agree to not vote for witnesses without fear of his stake being frozen again.

There will likely need to be some sort of trustless agreement on that as well.

It's tough to come up with concrete conclusions without being directly involved, but the sooner people decide whether that social contract is legally binding or not, the sooner we can actually get something done.

My personal guess is that it probably isn't legally binding, though I am not a lawyer.

Stay informed my friends.

-Doc

hive-168689 steem steemit palnet steemleo neoxian tron justinsun

5 years ago by jrcornel (84)

$8.68

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!

Sort Order:

Trending

[-]

belemo (72) · 5 years ago

As much as the issue is related to the stake, it is also related to Justin Sun's reputation and judging by some conversations I've encountered, very racist. People throw "China" and "Communist nation", which are both true about Sun in terms of origin and nationality but very underhanded and irrelevant to the situation.

Sun bought Steemit fair and square, and can do whatever he wants with his stake. That's what decentralization preaches and what we all uphold. The use of steem from ploniex, binance and Houboi was also very underhanded and dirty. They should all power down and then restrategise.

I'm team Consensus witness though. 😁

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

ezzy (77) · 5 years ago

Nicely put, mate.

$0.00

[-]

edicted (72) · 5 years ago

This argument is pointless. Legally binding in what country? Steem is a sovereign entity. Our consensus is the law and our network is borderless. It doesn't matter if some other country says a verbal contact is legally binding or not. We say this contract is binding, so it is.

Also, we can take Justin to court but he can't take Steem to court. That's the power of decentralization.

$0.00

4 votes

[-]

mtl1979 (50) · 5 years ago

Justin Sun can take Steem to court as the user information is public... But he would have to server every single user. Because definition of sovereign entity is based on international agreement, any issues must be settled in international court.

Sovereign entity has to meet these requirements:

Permanent population (Steem's userbase)
Defined territory (Steem blockchain)
One government (Witnesses)
Capacity to make agreements with other sovereign entities (Steemit Inc)

$0.07

2 votes

[-]

edicted (72) · 5 years ago

Justin Sun can't take Steem to court because the witnesses can change in an instant. If the witnesses lose in court and start running code that was demanded by law, we vote in new witnesses.

To say that Steem has a defined territory is laughable.
Blockchain is borderless; that is the literal definition of not having a defined territory.

$0.00

[-]

mtl1979 (50) · 5 years ago

Suing only current witnesses would be bad idea for that specific reason, that's why he has to serve every single user instead
There is well-defined limits for every single blockchain, otherwise there would be chaos when all blockchains would try merging
Even defining something to be vague like borderless or crossing borders, is still a definition per se, as in it is defined to be international

$0.00

[-]

arthur.grafo (69) · 5 years ago

Why not, as a delaying tactic - we could ask the court to freeze those SP Justin was given/sold until the matter has been judged. If that is done, maybe then Ned would also have to have his funds (paid to him from Justin) frozen until a decision is arrived at.

However, I agree, not likely to happen, as it need someone to take the decision and I do not see how that can happen.

$0.03

1 vote

[-]

edicted (72) · 5 years ago

We are about to get firsthand experience in the speed of blockchain governance vs traditional governance. Blockchain governance is 1000 times faster.

$0.00

[-]

novacadian (58) · 5 years ago

Which leads me to believe that it seems unlikely that the original intention of that steem is legally binding, no matter how badly I wish it was.

This is not a court of law, this the code being the law. The exchanges, which colluded with Mr. Sun, have demonstrated that in the cryptoverse possession is ten tenths of the law.

@null|Mr. Sun.