I see them as a stakeholder who acquired their stake through a legitimate over-the-counter purchase, and I am not OK forcing restrictions on the way a stakeholder uses their stake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods
Figure out the analogy. Theres nothing legitimate about the ninjamine stake. It remains as it was.
Possession of stolen goods
Possession of stolen goods is a crime in which an individual has bought, been given, or acquired stolen goods.
In many jurisdictions, if an individual has accepted possession of goods or property and knew they were stolen, then the individual is typically charged with a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the value of the stolen goods. If the individual did not know the goods were stolen, then the goods are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted. However, there are often exceptions, because of the difficulty of proving or disproving an individual's knowledge that the goods were stolen.
Acknowledged, and appreciate the position. While it does not change my mind, I am not going to argue against anyone who holds that view.