"Promises" ...... promises that Justin Sun didn't make.
Like I said, I get where some of these responses are coming from but the fact is if its not legally binding then there isn't much ground to stand on for forking a mans stake who used his own funds to purchase said stake.
He's been free to transfer it, power it down, or burn for several days.
That doesn't excuse the fact it got soft forked.
Do you expect him to just trust those who soft forked it to not do it again?
It would be foolish of him to do so. He likely needs some sort of insurance that gntds. his stake won't be forked again. A public notice from those who did like @tamiil suggested would be a nice step in the right direction.
Once he starts an operation it takes a hard fork to stop/reverse it.
He is, and has been for days, free to do as he pleases with his funds.
The sf was used to get dialog, it has served its purpose.
No guarantees in crypto outside the code.
This is why becoming known as a liar tends to precede folks with the reputation of lying.
The sf was used to get dialog, it has served its purpose.
I call B.S. on that .....
The man is rich and has other investments to tend to. It was only days between the "A.M.A." and the secret metting between 65(?) steemians who thought it was a good idea to implement a soft fork on an man with a vast amount of resources and funds. The softfork was a foolish idea that got all this mess started.
The coming in like a wrecking ball with token swaps and ending the chain, then voting with nonvoting stake in tron, got this started.
Then doubling down with exchange stake just proved the assumptions right.
The witness done right by us.
We won by inches.
Regardless, done is done.
We only want to move ahead, now.
When smteees!, and tranquility?
The token swap is a none issue. Anyone can offer a token swap, its up to the community to accept it. What happened on the tron blockchain has no affect on the STEEM blockchain. We can't point to that as justification to freeze the mans stake he paid millions for.
I don't like how he tried to regain his tokens power (the exchanges should of never got envolved) but I don't fault the man for protecting his millions that he just invested.
In short: No softfork / No need for exchanges to get envolved. The softfork started all this but like you said, lets look forward not backward.
!ENGAGE 25
Can somebody get JS to swing the big stick on some legacy bullies?
Maybe not proactively, but certainly reactively.
25 ENGAGE from @rentmoney!There are several video recordings of them acknowledging that the stake was intended to be non-voting and spent on development. Making that statement does hold legal obligations.
And you can't buy a stolen car and expect to keep it after the police come to your door. Justin Sun may not have known about the obligations put on the stake, but those obligations were made by the CEO and CTO of Steemit Inc., which means that Steemit Inc., which is the actual holder of the stake continues obligated to fulfill the statements.
Steemit Inc. (The “Company”), is a private company that helps develop the open-source software that powers steemit.com, including steemd. The Company may own various digital assets, including, without limitation, quantities of cryptocurrencies such as STEEM. These assets are the sole property of the Company. Further, the Company’s mission, vision, goals, statements, actions, and core values do not constitute a contract, commitment, obligation, or other duty to any person, company or cryptocurrency network user and are subject to change at any time.
Source: https://steemitwallet.com/about.html
Outlining and speaking about what their then current plans were doesn't mean plans don't change.
To date I have seen 0 legal proof the Steemit Stake wasn't privately owned. Your comment hasn't changed that fact.
But was that disclaimer done after the fact or before? Ned has been recorded in interviews talking about the purpose of the stake, and that disclaimer seems like a direct response to public opinion regarding previous statements made on the stake.
To be honest I'm not sure. I know if I was a witnesses I would be doing a number of things to garner support.
(1) I would search out and provide any legal proof the Steemit Stake isn't private.
(2) I would compile all promises made by NED in regards to the Steemit INC. stake
(3) I would find adequate proof that the disclaimer is after the fact of this issue at hand.
(4) I would provide all the above in a single post and referance it everytime a topic like this comes up.
Its the legal aspect that truely matters here, not promises that aren't legaly binding. If there isn't enough legal proof the Steemit INC. stake isn't privately owned then its privately owned regardless of if promises were made or not. Its the job of those saying Ned's Steemit stake isn't private to provide evidance to support those claims.