By all public accounts (and I know of no contradictory non-public information), what he bought was a company, and if that company owns development non-voting stake, then it is still development non-voting stake after he buys the company.
Some just dont want to accept that simple fact. It is his problem he didnt do his research.
Yes, I can't accept this fact. In my opinion, the promise was broken when Ned sold the stake. But I see where you come from. It is debatable.
the promise was broken when Ned sold the stake.
Im not following..
Yes Ned broke the social contract thats why witnesses are enforcing it now with code.
What I am saying is that Ned broke it, so it's broken. Done. Not Justin's problem.
I understand you don't agree and I get your point.
So if i break a law that means the law is now invalid because i broke it?
Im trying to understand what your point is here.
Yes, Ned broke the promise thats why soft fork was introduced so no one else can break the promise.
That's the analogy. Replace law with social contract relating to the Steemit. Inc ninjamine stake.
Steemit. Inc is still Steemit. Inc, only the owner changed.
Nothing stopped once Ned sold. The agreement was still valid.
I'm very confused as to how you're defending this.
He wanted to dismantle the chain, swap the token, strip away anything of value, take it to Tron and let Steem die using unfairly acquired stake.
How in the world is anyone defending this.