RE: Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated

valued-customer in #steem • 5 years ago (edited)

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.

5 years ago in #steem by valued-customer

0.00 BPC

1 vote

Sort:

Trending

[-]

blocktrades 5 years ago

Perhaps you should read my recent post, which I hope may shed some light on why I disagree with your legal reasoning.

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

valued-customer 5 years ago (edited)

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!

0.00 BPC