Serious question for the witness cabal, if Justin subsequently buys a large amount of STEEM over the counter from exchanges to gain a majority share over the network, would the witness cabal freeze those funds too?
RE: Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated
I can't speak for everyone, but I would not be for that or run a fork that did it. A key factor in all of this is the fact that Steemit Inc made a public promise, which it has repeated often, stating that it will not use its stake in witness voting, and that it will be used to further decentralize and grow Steem. People have invested their time and money into Steem on this basis. The problem here is not that action was taken, but that it wasn't done a long time ago.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I under stand the governance issue, but this goes further, it also prevents the accounts from powering down and withdrawing which has nothing to do with governance. To say that the STEEM is "earmarked" for special purposes after it has been sold to a new owner is bizarre as the witnesses don't have any investment stake in Steemit Inc. that I am aware of. I would not be surprised to see civil action against any US actors involved in this, and it wouldn't surprise me if freezing the assets of a US-based company violated criminal law.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I understand how many can find this troubling. I found it troubling too, as 1. it affects other business operations Steemit Inc may have wanted to do and 2. it also goes beyond just preventing certain actions from being made to also preventing any counter-measures to be done. (While that was the argument to add those op's to the limitations, aka so that they could not simply power down and move their stake to a different account and vote from them instead, it does assume ill intent and hostility. Which I don't think is something we can or should assume yet.)
That's another debate. In my opinion, Justin Sun acquired Steemit Inc. Steemit Inc held certain obligations and had made public statements that others had invested based on. Those obligations and statements remain the same despite a change of ownership. Would you think it was fine if Ned bought Steemit Inc back and decided to take all of that stake promised for community development and marketing for himself? While not exactly the same, I would say that this is similar to saying that if you sell stolen goods to someone else, then it is wrong for the original owner to want it back. The status of the asset don't change just because the owner does.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Steemit Inc. has no obligations and anyone who invested based on Ned's promises can litigate their grievances with him, but this is something completely different which reveals a fundamental flaw in the nature and value of this chain, and to address your point #2 that is the crux of my question to witnesses, if someone buys a majority stake from exchanges to control witness votes, will the current cabal treat them as hostile and freeze their assets? This is a very important question.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I would not. And after this, I think a good idea would be to reduce the number of witness votes each account has to 10. That way, it would take a lot more for one buyer to be able to fully control the chain.
Thank you for your input, it's really useful to hear what community members think.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Promises are made to be broken...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm not a witness but as a stakeholder I would not vote for witnesses doing that.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Buying a company owning 'something' is never the same as buying 'something'.
It's what corporate lawyers are paid for, to be aware of the differense and to act accordingly. That isn't something to be executed by volonteers)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit