So those accounts can’t even power down, transfer and sell the stakes? Is there anything they can do?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Sort: Trending
What if they need to sell some stakes to cover operational and development expense?
This change is reversible, so we can always discuss from there on. The idea was that we wanted to protect ourselves from a hostile takeover threat that could happen at any moment.
Ideally the stake should be bound within certain rulesets, e.g. release X amount for just what you suggest. But as of now the stake was ready to be fully powered down or to be used for controlling large part of the Steem blockchain.
1 Steem = 1 witness vote is all the rules necessary. However that will reduce the undue influence substantial stakeholders have wielded over governance heretofore, and effect equitable distribution of influence to all stakeholders, regardless of the size of their stakes.
Either contemplate legal action for this tort, or end the threat 30x multiplication of stake represents to decentralization.
Clearly the intended/claimed purpose for the founder's stake is precluded by this soft fork, to fund development of Steem, and constitutes a tort. I strongly recommend the consensus eliminate the threat that the 30x multiplication of stake on witnesses by enacting 1 Steem = 1 witness vote. If decentralization is actually the purpose of this soft fork, that will equitably solve the problem permanently, and this tortuous impediment on @justinsunsteemit (or Tron, whoever the actual possessor of the stake is) can be ended as swiftly as possible.
I am confident this is an actionable cause, and commend you to seek legal counsel, and to rectify the fault at your earliest possible opportunity.
Perhaps you should read my recent post, which I hope may shed some light on why I disagree with your legal reasoning.
I am playing catch up, and will as soon as practicable. I have understood due to the kind explanations of dormant stake by both @smooth and @timcliff that my belief that 1 Steem = 1 witness vote would resolve the potential of the founder's stake to effect instant control over governance of the Steem blockchain is incorrect, and that stake represents ~70% of stake available to vote for witnesses.
I do apologize for my misunderstanding, but I remain convinced that change is necessary to make governance of Steem equitable. There are very good reasons no stock corporation elects directors in the way Steem elects witnesses.
Thanks!
Delegated stake can only vote on posts and comments, it doesn't count for witness or SPS voting.
Oh yeah, thanks.
Nice to see this now, too bad we didn't do it before linear rewards.
Yes, for example,
They can still delegate stake
And create accounts.
- blocktrades
I'm a bot. I detect haiku.