I wish this would have been done earlier when Steemit Inc was in charge. Also, Steemit Inc shouldn't have been allowed to delegate or vote.
Tron shouldn't be allowed to delegate but they should be allowed to withdraw at a certain pace which is slower than other accounts.
Completely agree. The community is right to demand that code is law, but should have demanded such from Dan/Ned when they made those promises to the community which so many have invested time and money based on afterward.
Do you also think they should not be able to delegate to new accounts? Personally, I think delegations can be fine as long as it can be shown to contribute to growing the ecosystem and the rewards don't go back to Steemit Inc, but instead to other projects that comes to build here (thus living up to the promise of being used to further decentralize stake and grow the platform). I understand and respet that there are different opinions here though.
As for withdrawals, I was also against this being included. My condition for approving this was that it would only be a temporary limitation until Steemit Inc's new ownership has shared their intent with using it, and i's been guaranteed that they will do as promised.
In any case, it is very promising to see so many community devs, witnesses and stakeholders come together and put in such an amount of work this fast! I'm left very optimistic about where we can go from here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
One practical issue with power down is that it can be hidden and powered up into other accounts to vote for witnesses, proposals (SPS) or payouts. Even at a slow rate, a small to moderate portion of 73 million quickly has enormous influence (only 5-10% of it is still easily one of the largest stakes on the platform).
If the decision is made that voting is harmful and unacceptable then IMO you have to likewise consider power down too as a practical matter, until some other arrangement can be made such as putting a trustee in place to ensure that powered-down stake is then only used appropriately when the chain can no longer enforce it.