This is a stake based platform, and what this essentially does is says "your stake matters, but don't have too much of it".
That's absolutely misleading. This isn't about an account having too much stake, but rather about the ninja mined stake from Steemit Inc., which was unfairly mined and is now threatening the governance of this system.
Nobody of these Witnesses would just censor an account, because of too much stake. That is absurd and misleading.
Because he's voted in all of the witnesses who made this decision. Isn't that obvious?
The conflict of interest here is ludicrous.
That has nothing to do with it. I would have at least expected for you to understand the difference between Steemit Inc and non Steemit Inc stakeholders.
Doesn't this look like the top witnesses just ensuring they will remain the top witnesses?
I could say he is, and we have no way of proving either way. That's beside the point though; if the problem is ninja-mined stake, selectively picking the biggest one absolutely shows that this is about the amount of stake.
To be clear, everyone here that did due diligence when investing knows about the ninjamine, and I'm not advocating removing any of the powers that comes along with that stake, just using it as a rhetorical device.
It's more than selectively picking the biggest one. They've selectively chosen to ignore the ninja-mined stake that is already doing what they're afraid of in favor of blocking one that isn't, while doing things that way accrues financial benefit to themselves.
Freedom is not Steemit Inc, regardless how much you might despise his activities. Also, nobody is just censoring an account based on speculations. All the accounts that were part of SF 0.22.2, are 100% Steemit Inc accounts.
"As far as we know". If anyone can prove that freedom is in fact Steemit or Ned or Dan or such, then please bring it forward.
To be fair, their argument is (as I understand it) the steemit inc stake has been bound by a contract with the community, so this is to enforce that contract.
Its not only about the ninjamine, its about conflicting information, its about clear and open lies, its about broken promises.
If Ned makes a statement that he will not use the ninjamine stake to influence the community consensus, essentially entering into a social contract with us over that stake, then when that stake is sold, that social contract is passed on to Justin.
Why hasn't this been enforced before the stake changed hands? Why is this only coming to fruition now that Justin has bought the stake?
If you could prove that freedom was/is part of Steemit then I would argue for it to be included. But as you say, you can't prove this, so I doubt many/any witnesses are going to take action on the basis of nothing but speculation.
Yes, exactly. We can speculate all we want, but no actions were taken on accounts that were not proven to be Steemit Inc. accounts. Simply having large stake is not the issue here.
It can't be proven either way, but from the way the ninjamine occurred, I would lean towards freedom at least being an insider. That's just an opinion without proof though, and I'm not advocating any stake, ninjamined or not, get curbed or removed. This breaks the DPoS.
Then why didn't the witnesses ban the stake BEFORE? If it was illegal and mined improperly, then why wasn't it dealt with many years ago? Why do you not ban the ninja mined stake from others too, ones that support your projects @therealwolf?