RE: Vlog 459: A sad day for Steem

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Vlog 459: A sad day for Steem

roelandp in #exyle • 5 years ago

Yes it is a sad day, I agree. It should not have come to this. This should risk have been mitigated by code long time ago. Why wasn't it? It's a tough cookie to crack, but has always been on the table. But only recently gained critical mass. Just as @steem.dao is a special coded username in the blockchain, the Steemit Inc stake should have that coded in (IMHO).

Per your suggestion: if it was (more) talks first, freeze later: it could would have resulted in a hardfork once a huge powerdown would have started. Which then all exchanges in question need to have had addressed. This is a softfork which blocks certain operations from being executed by accounts owned by Steemit.inc. No funds are nullified.

That said for over a week numerous witnesses have tried to reach out to Steemit INC, talks with Steemit INC devs and we formulated pretty specific questions for the AMA. But the AMA was very disappointing: self-moderated, picking 3 lame questions on the spot and one vague answer: "for now". I feel that with the PR moves from Tron Network specifically there is an anology with your "Freeze first, talk later". What they did, and are still doing is pushing a narrative of an upcoming Token Swap of the STEEM Blockchain, thus: "Publish first, talk later".

Please understand this:

Nobody took it lightly to decide upon doing this.
This is not a precedent: My opinion is, if any single person buys a major stake now, wether OTC or via exchanges in STEEM, and starts voting with it then so be it: But the Steemit Inc stake is a special one as defined in "social contracts", code upgrades, video interviews.

Some articles which are good reads on the current situation:

5 years ago in #exyle by roelandp

0.00 BPC

6 votes

Sort:

Trending

[-]

exyle 5 years ago

I do understand why the action was taken and the reasoning behind it (even though I completely don't agree with it).

If you ask anyone here if it's ok to freeze their account, they would run for that PD button indeed.

So you don't ask. You do it (with consensus but obviously without debate).

For me, that is a problem, I believe it has set a precedent and it will be a looming option over the chain for anyone that in the eyes of the current governance might have bad intentions to the chain (whatever that may be, and that is the slippery slope).

Unfreezing the account will be a whole new puzzle to solve now too.

I hope you can imagine that it hasn't been easy for me to have such an opposing view from others on this topic, especially after all these years.

Thanks, Roeland, for your reply.

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

roundbeargames 5 years ago

the precedent is more like the biggest whale threatening the safety of the chain and the community reacting to it. you're nitpicking the investment side of it. for any future investors the lesson is keep your fingers off twitter if you dunno what you're doing. not a bad precedent if you ask me.

0.00 BPC

[-]

doingdailies 5 years ago

governance ...

the simple fact that accounts CAN be frozen whatever the reason proves my point that this thing is about as centralized as any government, a few people decide and you are fucked, and that's that

the exact opposite of what BTC originally intended : DE-centralization ... no one is the boss, this stinks, another reason not to buy one cent of STEEM anymore

0.00 BPC

[-]

vikisecrets 5 years ago

Agree, temporarily freezing pre-mined stake is actually a bold and protective move for the community and all who have honestly invested in Steem. Steemit's stake is similar to Steem DAO and should not take part in voting for example but only be used for maintaining, developing and marketing Steem. That was an unwritten agreement we had the last couple of years and should now be set in code, steem on :)

0.00 BPC