Delegations are never neutral and advantage some witnesses over others. The repercussions are long-lasting and widespread.
I think they should be able to withdraw their Steem Power but a slower pace than everyone else. 50% slower would be neat.
RE: Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated
Even 50% slower, after a few weeks, you have a big unaccounted for block of ninja-mined stake potentially with no transparency or accountability at all.
The already happened in the past when Ned was concerned that witnesses might take some action. He started powering down and hiding Steem, and to my knowledge that Steem was never accounted for in any way.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That would be the end result for sure but in the end, it's their stake. They should have access to it.
I wouldn't vote to withheld their stake indefinitely.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It is better described as development stake (non-voting at that) held by a company (a company which has now changed hands, but the company changing hands doesn't change anything about the nature of the stake).
There is no real doubt that Ned said it was all to be used to develop the ecosystem. On other occasions he said it was theirs to do as they see fit.
But, really, I don't see how one person or company saying one thing when it is convenient and then saying another thing when that is convenient should play in his favor. If anything the opposite.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit