First time I disagree with you. Yes, there are great reasons to do this, and I get your point for voting rights.
I even think that we should remove voting rights from the accounts that belong to exchanges.
The problem is not about voting rights, but about not allowing Justin to powerdown/sell his stake. It's just flat wrong. He bought it, and it's an investment. The whole point is to make a profit.
Saying the stake should be used for Steem's development is the most naïve thing ever. Even if it was a promise with Ned, the promise was broken when he sold the stake.
The way I see it is that Justin will spend his own money to improve Steem to get a good ROI on his stake, not use the stake to improve Steem for no benefit at all.
Now Justin owns it and he 100% should be able to powerdown. Even if it fucks up the plan for the negotiation, so be it, we fork.
If he is able to powerdown, he able to move the stake to a new account and vote. The stake was promised it would not vote based on the founders. That is fraud and I don't see why we need to let fraud have a chance at destroying the chain.
If I created a coin, premined most of it into existence for myself, then let others start to mine it. To help the price one could have made all these promises what that the token wouldnt be used to vote or destory the system. People invest based on that word. If I was then to go back on my word that would be fraud with the possibility of jail time.
This is very black and white. The founders stick to their promise or they are frauds. They didn't stick to it, so here we are.
Once he powers down there is not talking, we have no power than to stop him. This is the same as buying a house with a lean on it, I would know, I did so once and it rekt my life temporarily. Just because you buy something does not exhaust the purchase of former obligations.
Even with this soft fork, he ultimately decides what happens. He can just say no if he wants to. Then we'll hard fork and there will be two coins.
Who do you think cares more about keeping one chain, him or us? I'd say us, and that's why the only solution was to negotiate with him in good faith.
There might be a sweet spot where we can use this soft fork in negotiations, but if he gets tired of the demands then it's the worst case scenario for us anyway.
I for one, totally disagree with you on where the leverage lies. The community literally has the leverage here, as far as support of the Steem chain goes.
The apparent reason he purchased Steemit was to bring that community to Tron. If he forks and creates another chain without the Steem community supporting it, then there was never a reason to buy Steemit anyways: he could have just forked the chain and have it supported by Tron people.
sorry for barging in but do you think the community has enough leverage to push further development of SMTs? or to launch it before justin forcefully tries to "migrate" everything to some unknown token? what do you see happening down the road now that justin has "lost face" and might as well be looking for a way to backstab the witnesses when he sees the chance?
He has no power now. He cant vote in witnesses and he cant token swap. If he had control over the top 20 witnesses then he might have been able to dismantle Steem (which was his original idea), retain exchanges and move Steem to Tron.
Now he cant do nothing.
My only fear is that witnesses let up and trust him on his word.
We need to remember that ITS HIS PROBLEM that he bought tainted stake, not ours.
He should have done his research..
It's endlessly fascinating to me the levels of self deception that people such as yourself are capable of. Or do you just not know how to read English well? Witnesses were warning all along that Tron's interest was Tron and not Steem.
And if the plan was to just pump a random coin, this was about the dumbest way anyone could ever do it: picking a coin where an engaged community will openly oppose manipulation attempts. There's much easier prey out there.
I couldn't agree more, seeing as, he doesn't want anything else but to sell his stake, why should he be restrained.
He should have every right to decide what he does with his stake.
I hope things are ok with your family, as you mentioned you'd been dealing with personal issues?
Family is so important, and there is much more important things than steem in life.
I agree that the ninja mine was shady, and understand why people were pissed about it from the beginning. Plus Ned selling out without a word is what it is... It seems integrity is a dying art.
Personally I think the Softfork shows the power, and strength of steems governance. Defence of the blockchain against fraud was necessary, which I discuss in my latest post. It seems like we agree on the need for the softfork in regards to worst case scenarios.
Good point about the threat that if Tron had started voting witnesses, not to mention the threat of the effects of that alone but that it would turn Steem into a security and that would've created problems for everyone on the chain. They wouldn't have needed to do much more damage than that and still kept their "face" and pretended to accidentally have done so without knowing the repercussions in that example. Wonder what that means for the recent SR voting they did on Tron.
You act like this soft fork won't create problems for everyone on the site. If they are going to do that to the old steemit inc. stake, then they needed to do it to the freedom account. The reason they didn't is the fact that they all get witness votes from it, and it would weaken their hold on the witness position. If they truly did this for the sake of the site, why not step down after doing it. That is the only way to prove that it was not a move to solidify their positions as a top witness, and insure their massive paydays stayed. We should have a "term limits" of sort for the top witnesses otherwise they are never getting voted out, and will destroy the site. Who in their right mind would ever invest in steem again, if this is what could happen. As for the legal reason, I am going to say BS , but will look into it. I feel you guys are just throwing it out there to justify you decision with some disinformation. The fact that xrp has not been labeled a security yet, leads me to believe you are stretching the possibility of steem being labeled a security.
No, the reason it's not considered for the freedom account is freedom didn't promise to use his stake solely for onboarding and development of the Steem blockchain, then go back on that promise. Steemit did make that promise, and a lot of the large stakeholders relied on that stake when making investment into this chain and staying with it.
In simple words, Steemit claimed their corporate stake was a development stake, and Steem investors depended on that dev stake's usage when making investment decisions. Freedom never made such claims.
This also applies to the individual stakes mined by Steemit devs (and Ned's personal stake): none of that stake was frozen, because they never claimed that stake was dev stake, it was clearly always personal stake.
Do you seriously believe that Justin will consider using the stake for development? He just paid millions for it (I am guessing, market price).
What if he uses some Tron to pay for developments, to make his stake worth a lot more?
The problem is voting rights, and the centralization of the chain. Please don't try to make him use the stake as a development stake. He'll never go for it and we'll end up with a hard fork.
Yes, I do. And that's based on much more knowledge of the terms of the agreement than most people have, as I was a minority stakeholder in Steemit Inc.
From his point of view, it can still be a win: by donating to the SPS, he can say he's decentralized the chain, and at the same time Steemit can still make proposals to do the development, essentially getting a large portion of that stake back. This does force the stake to be used for Steem development rather than Tron development, but that's kind of the point, from the community perspective. Trying a fork without any community support looks like a much worse alternative for him, IMO.
By all public accounts (and I know of no contradictory non-public information), what he bought was a company, and if that company owns development non-voting stake, then it is still development non-voting stake after he buys the company. Nothing changes by just changing the names of the shareholders.
If something about the company is not what he thought it was, that's an issue for the parties to that transaction to work out, and not our concern.
We don't even know that to be the case though. For all we actually know, he could have been fully aware of it being development non-voting stake and there is really no issue here beyond working out the details of how that gets enforced. Personally I hope that is the case, but, like you, I don't know.
Unless you do actually have some relevant facts to share. If not please stop making things up.
By all public accounts (and I know of no contradictory non-public information), what he bought was a company, and if that company owns development non-voting stake, then it is still development non-voting stake after he buys the company.
Some just dont want to accept that simple fact. It is his problem he didnt do his research.
As I said this is just one threat that many didn't even think about along all the other threats to the chain of a majority stakeholder taking over the top20 and doing whatever they want with Steem and the future of the chain.
After spending some time doing some basic researching it really doesn't matter that the shareholders (stakeholders) were notified or had a say, that lays with the fact the company was sold outright, lock, stock and barrel, when that happens there is no requirement or participation requirement of a board of directors, stakeholders or witnesses. That's under existing merger laws, as such Justin can do whatever he wants up to and including a forced merger, he can change the name, he can change how it operates, etc. The only recourse or obligation moving forward to the existing sharesholders or stakeholders is that he has by law offer market value buyout to every stakeholder on the platform that does not want to move forward into the merger with him. Now if Ned hadn't been the major stakeholder in the company he'd needed approval from the board of directors....now let's just assume he may have gone that route, in that case it would have had to have been determined exactly who the board of directors were, were they a separate lot somewhere at corporate headquarters or were they the witnesses. After that determination they'd had to go to all the stakeholders and get them to agree to the sell out by whatever percentage would have been stated in any by laws, if they were none greater than fifty percent then it usually goes by gaining approval of more than fifty percent. So let's look at this as maybe there was a board of directors somewhere in the corporate line of things that we didn't know about who held more than fifty percent of the shares, that could have created the needed over fifty percent whereas notifying the rest wasn't needed. I only mention it because there were many claims of high powered accounts powering down in the last year so it could be in the realm of possibilities. If it were the witnesses then yes the witnesses would have been required to get over fifty percent of the people onboard to sell. But as stated above the overall fact remains, he sold out lock, stock and barrel and in a incident like that there is no recourse other than Justin is now under the legal obligation to offer market value to any stakeholder who doesn't want to move forward with him.
As for this soft fork they need to fully understand the implications of that move. This has been all the way to the supreme court. No company, corporation, board, absolutely no one within a company can freeze another members shares for any reason what so ever. They can't even implement a new rule to avoid a stakeholder from doing something they don't like. Which was the premise upon which the supreme court ruled when a company in a bid to stop a stakeholder from selling to someone they implemented a new rule that restricted how the stock could be sold. The court ruled that if the rule had existed prior in a contract then the stakeholder/shareholder would have been held to it but since it did not exist the rule technically oppressed a minority shareholder and judgement plus losses were awarded. It's called The Oppression of Minority Stakeholder law but the law works in regard to any attempt to obstruct another stakeholders stake.
One other thing that may help people, this is in regards to the US and in Europe but despite the fact that shareholders think they own part of a company it's been ruled that they hold no stake in that regard, at best when a company is sold under any circumstances, meaning whether outright or by the majority voting to do so those who objected to the sale were entitled by right at the most to be offered market value for their stock if they wanted to opt out.
Hopefully everyone gets together and they can work out their differences, if not maybe this will give people a better understand of some basic legalities involved here.
It feels like you're missing the distinction between corporate shares and cryptocurrency. Shares in Steemit have no legal relationship to the Steem cryptocurrency, they are two very distinct things.
Cryptocurrency holds value only because users of the network decide to give it value. And if a cryptocurrency loses those users, the value, in fact, goes to 0.
Also, operators in a cryptocurrency network are voluntarily running software on their own computers to support that network. They are always free to change the nature of how that software operates: they are under no contractual obligations to run a specific version of the software that operates in a certain way. In cryptocurrency lingo, this is called a fork. It happens quite often in cryptocurrency.
And Steemit itself has written forks of the Steem blockchain code many times, including redistributing funds in accounts as part of a hardfork. When that happened, the people running the Steem software on their computers had three simple choices: 1) continue to run the old software, 2) run the new software, or 3) run something completely different that they liked better.
It's not completely simple, but if you're able to research corporate law, there's a reasonable chance you'll understand it. If not, let me know, and I'll add clarifications where I can.
I hardly doubt it will go to court, who here outside some on the lower tier want to see them brought into full compliance with the laws. They may even find it hard to find any attorney's willing to take either sides case considering attorney's who specialize in corporate/business laws (outside mob attorneys, lol) will probably laugh them out of their offices once they see how the system was founded and operates. (lol) Neither side may want the prying eyes of the legal system upon them, especially if it hits the news and the disgruntled masses who've left start ringing phones off the hook. I can just see them all standing before a judge trying to explain that the whole block chain concept is built upon the ideology it's a wild, wild west frontier where everything goes until, of course, .....
the legal system slaps them upside their heads and tells them 1800's is no longer knocking. (lol) Even if Ned promised he'd do this or that with that stake it still doesn't hold Justin liable to do it, at best they can sue Ned to get it back as I am sure that stake was included in the sale, a verbal contract can be just as binding as a paper one especially if those promises have been put out on the immutable block chain....I guess if that came to fruition you could label it a concept whose time has finally come. (lol) Yup ol' Ned could be forced to give up every nickle, dime and penny of that mined stake.
So far I only see two unmasked villains in all this and they could be hedging on a bet that others may not be willing to unmask themselves, like I said even if they did outside of attorney's who make a living defending the indefensible will try and pass this through the legal system. The San Francisco meeting will resemble more of a pre ok corral meeting to try and decipher how they can all come to grips with each other before an all out frontal assault happens in any judicial system.
One side point on the corporate legal issue, which I believe you have completely wrong: the new company is liable for claims made against the old company it acquired. Now, they do have the option of then filing a lawsuit against the shareholders that sold that company, if the liabilities were deceptively hidden.
But this is one of the real risks of a company merger: acquiring a company with unexpected liabilities from the past, and there's often terms in the company merger agreement, to allow for redress against the sellers in such cases or to hold back part of the payment for some time, to make sure no such hidden liabilities emerge.
I thought about elaborating upon that some more but decided it probably wasn't need but since you brought it up I will address that issue. There are questions involved as to whether he spent any of that money towards development as promised, if he did that may leave him off the hook if he didn't agree to use all the money for development. Since it was mentioned he did develop a few things it wasn't specifically stated that the money used came from the mining stake so I didn't know the particulars of where that issue stood.
if he didn't agree to use all the money for development
He most certainly did state that ALL of the ninja-mined stake was for development of the ecosystem, including on a recorded program that was widely viewed by cryptocurrency investors. There can be no real doubt that such statements convinced investors to buy Steem (and certainly convinced some of us who were around at the time to not sell our Steem, or push forward with a fork much earlier).
You think the witnesses are responsible for you not being able to blog? (Ps communities makes you visible now)... the irredeemables list is something Steemit inc is in control of.. maybe if you ask Justin, he’ll fix it for you 🤷♀️ But it’s not the witnesses dear, they have no part in it.
I actually went to bat for him and got him off the irredeemables list, but he found he was on another blacklist and lost his mind and just started raging flagging random people.
The only recourse or obligation moving forward to the existing sharesholders or stakeholders is that he has by law offer market value buyout to every stakeholder on the platform that does not want to move forward into the merger with him.
so in theory that could be 40-60mil$ and he would have to pay every one of the stakeholders. that is like 1mil accounts :)
Sorry I should have worded that differently since we are talking crypto's and not stocks, stocks can't be powered down like crypto's, in order for no harm to come financially he's had to offer them adequate time to power down their stake. The main concept when it comes to investing, in a buy out, take over or merger it can't harm the investors. The positive side is that with so much at stake here on both sides the equation is this could drive them to the bargaining table without legal recourse, I would imagine that hinges on the amount of value Justin deems those holding it are worth in their continued participation. Hopefully in the end everyone will find some compromise and appreciation for the value and contribution all parties can bring together in this new proposed collaboration.
The key detail he's missing is that cryptocurrency node operators run software on their own computers on a purely voluntary basis: they have no contractual obligation to run any particular version that operates in any particular way.
This means any node operator can fork the software to operate as they please. There's no reasonable argument for harm, because the party claiming harm can simply run his own desired version of the software on his own computer. This just means there are now two "forks" of the software on the internet.
The "winner/loser" in the above case is just who gets the most users and which token gains the most economic value.
Note this happens all the time in cryptocurrency: that's why there's Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, etc...
Thanks for you opinion about this... you did address a lot of issues about the stake. As for justin, he did address that he wouldn't use his stake to vote for his "peeps" but he said the same with tron and just recently he did vote for 2 new super representatives. Let's see if he keeps his word. :)
Thanks a lot for explaining where that stake come from. I'm also supporting this soft fork and trusting witnesses is the only option we gave now. Steem is in their hands and they are doing something to save it. I hope all steemians will understand that.
Nice to hear your words and voice! I appreciate your opinions.
I am butt a floating plankton here on steem as in the real world. I kid myself not to promises of politicians or Ned’s hair.
The shaved ball sack of Justin Sun and Ned would be similar IMO, both wrinkled and capable of much smell. And thus i expect them both to conduct themselves to there own selfish, smelly ball sack contentment.
A cock is a cock, do not be surprised by the doodle doo.
Yes, much butt nutrients floating around for free....very important It often seems.
This is not legal investing advice..... but Buy bonafide shit said the Butt.
Must watch video to understand the subject better.
At this point, I really don't see how anybody could somehow think that the SF was anything other than crucial for the blockchain.
The founders of Steem made social contracts regarding use of their ninjamined stake, that are yet to be uphold.
If Steem wouldn't have these vast amount of stakeholders, nobody would bat an eye, whether the stake were to be sold. But, we do have many stakeholders and most of them insist about the social contracts being uphold.
Social contracts should have been upheld with the correct owners. The promise was broken when Ned sold the stake. Not Justin's problem.
And if you try to make it his problem the only possibility I see is a fork and a lose-lose.
Although it might not seem so, he has the leverage. If we fork, he still can pump a coin with no fundamentals and make some money. Or even take a loss on an investment.
But if we fork, we lose everything. The whole point is to avoid a fork, but the actions taken will cause the opposite.
First time I disagree with you. Yes, there are great reasons to do this, and I get your point for voting rights.
I even think that we should remove voting rights from the accounts that belong to exchanges.
The problem is not about voting rights, but about not allowing Justin to powerdown/sell his stake. It's just flat wrong. He bought it, and it's an investment. The whole point is to make a profit.
Saying the stake should be used for Steem's development is the most naïve thing ever. Even if it was a promise with Ned, the promise was broken when he sold the stake.
The way I see it is that Justin will spend his own money to improve Steem to get a good ROI on his stake, not use the stake to improve Steem for no benefit at all.
Now Justin owns it and he 100% should be able to powerdown. Even if it fucks up the plan for the negotiation, so be it, we fork.
If he is able to powerdown, he able to move the stake to a new account and vote. The stake was promised it would not vote based on the founders. That is fraud and I don't see why we need to let fraud have a chance at destroying the chain.
If I created a coin, premined most of it into existence for myself, then let others start to mine it. To help the price one could have made all these promises what that the token wouldnt be used to vote or destory the system. People invest based on that word. If I was then to go back on my word that would be fraud with the possibility of jail time.
This is very black and white. The founders stick to their promise or they are frauds. They didn't stick to it, so here we are.
But if he powers down all of it, at least we'll have a heads up. We'll have time to talk with him or make the appropriate fork.
However, if you freeze his stake, then you just stole his money. It's his investment (Justin, not Ned).
Once he powers down there is not talking, we have no power than to stop him. This is the same as buying a house with a lean on it, I would know, I did so once and it rekt my life temporarily. Just because you buy something does not exhaust the purchase of former obligations.
But Dan, we don't have leverage.
Even with this soft fork, he ultimately decides what happens. He can just say no if he wants to. Then we'll hard fork and there will be two coins.
Who do you think cares more about keeping one chain, him or us? I'd say us, and that's why the only solution was to negotiate with him in good faith.
There might be a sweet spot where we can use this soft fork in negotiations, but if he gets tired of the demands then it's the worst case scenario for us anyway.
I for one, totally disagree with you on where the leverage lies. The community literally has the leverage here, as far as support of the Steem chain goes.
The apparent reason he purchased Steemit was to bring that community to Tron. If he forks and creates another chain without the Steem community supporting it, then there was never a reason to buy Steemit anyways: he could have just forked the chain and have it supported by Tron people.
sorry for barging in but do you think the community has enough leverage to push further development of SMTs? or to launch it before justin forcefully tries to "migrate" everything to some unknown token? what do you see happening down the road now that justin has "lost face" and might as well be looking for a way to backstab the witnesses when he sees the chance?
He has no power now. He cant vote in witnesses and he cant token swap. If he had control over the top 20 witnesses then he might have been able to dismantle Steem (which was his original idea), retain exchanges and move Steem to Tron.
Now he cant do nothing.
My only fear is that witnesses let up and trust him on his word.
We need to remember that ITS HIS PROBLEM that he bought tainted stake, not ours.
He should have done his research..
Okay. I hope you're right.
Well done witnesses.
Why I was right and you were wrong I'll never understand.
Apparently he bought Steemit, Inc just to pump another shitcoin. Not to acquire the 5000+ community of Steem.
What a surprise.
It's endlessly fascinating to me the levels of self deception that people such as yourself are capable of. Or do you just not know how to read English well? Witnesses were warning all along that Tron's interest was Tron and not Steem.
And if the plan was to just pump a random coin, this was about the dumbest way anyone could ever do it: picking a coin where an engaged community will openly oppose manipulation attempts. There's much easier prey out there.
I couldn't agree more, seeing as, he doesn't want anything else but to sell his stake, why should he be restrained.
He should have every right to decide what he does with his stake.
Hey Dan.
I hope things are ok with your family, as you mentioned you'd been dealing with personal issues?
Family is so important, and there is much more important things than steem in life.
I agree that the ninja mine was shady, and understand why people were pissed about it from the beginning. Plus Ned selling out without a word is what it is... It seems integrity is a dying art.
Personally I think the Softfork shows the power, and strength of steems governance. Defence of the blockchain against fraud was necessary, which I discuss in my latest post. It seems like we agree on the need for the softfork in regards to worst case scenarios.
Good point about the threat that if Tron had started voting witnesses, not to mention the threat of the effects of that alone but that it would turn Steem into a security and that would've created problems for everyone on the chain. They wouldn't have needed to do much more damage than that and still kept their "face" and pretended to accidentally have done so without knowing the repercussions in that example. Wonder what that means for the recent SR voting they did on Tron.
You act like this soft fork won't create problems for everyone on the site. If they are going to do that to the old steemit inc. stake, then they needed to do it to the freedom account. The reason they didn't is the fact that they all get witness votes from it, and it would weaken their hold on the witness position. If they truly did this for the sake of the site, why not step down after doing it. That is the only way to prove that it was not a move to solidify their positions as a top witness, and insure their massive paydays stayed. We should have a "term limits" of sort for the top witnesses otherwise they are never getting voted out, and will destroy the site. Who in their right mind would ever invest in steem again, if this is what could happen. As for the legal reason, I am going to say BS , but will look into it. I feel you guys are just throwing it out there to justify you decision with some disinformation. The fact that xrp has not been labeled a security yet, leads me to believe you are stretching the possibility of steem being labeled a security.
.
No, the reason it's not considered for the freedom account is freedom didn't promise to use his stake solely for onboarding and development of the Steem blockchain, then go back on that promise. Steemit did make that promise, and a lot of the large stakeholders relied on that stake when making investment into this chain and staying with it.
In simple words, Steemit claimed their corporate stake was a development stake, and Steem investors depended on that dev stake's usage when making investment decisions. Freedom never made such claims.
This also applies to the individual stakes mined by Steemit devs (and Ned's personal stake): none of that stake was frozen, because they never claimed that stake was dev stake, it was clearly always personal stake.
Do you seriously believe that Justin will consider using the stake for development? He just paid millions for it (I am guessing, market price).
What if he uses some Tron to pay for developments, to make his stake worth a lot more?
The problem is voting rights, and the centralization of the chain. Please don't try to make him use the stake as a development stake. He'll never go for it and we'll end up with a hard fork.
Yes, I do. And that's based on much more knowledge of the terms of the agreement than most people have, as I was a minority stakeholder in Steemit Inc.
From his point of view, it can still be a win: by donating to the SPS, he can say he's decentralized the chain, and at the same time Steemit can still make proposals to do the development, essentially getting a large portion of that stake back. This does force the stake to be used for Steem development rather than Tron development, but that's kind of the point, from the community perspective. Trying a fork without any community support looks like a much worse alternative for him, IMO.
By all public accounts (and I know of no contradictory non-public information), what he bought was a company, and if that company owns development non-voting stake, then it is still development non-voting stake after he buys the company. Nothing changes by just changing the names of the shareholders.
If something about the company is not what he thought it was, that's an issue for the parties to that transaction to work out, and not our concern.
We don't even know that to be the case though. For all we actually know, he could have been fully aware of it being development non-voting stake and there is really no issue here beyond working out the details of how that gets enforced. Personally I hope that is the case, but, like you, I don't know.
Unless you do actually have some relevant facts to share. If not please stop making things up.
Some just dont want to accept that simple fact. It is his problem he didnt do his research.
Yes, I can't accept this fact. In my opinion, the promise was broken when Ned sold the stake. But I see where you come from. It is debatable.
Im not following..
Yes Ned broke the social contract thats why witnesses are enforcing it now with code.
As I said this is just one threat that many didn't even think about along all the other threats to the chain of a majority stakeholder taking over the top20 and doing whatever they want with Steem and the future of the chain.
One of the best explanations on the topic. Thanks.
Another great one from the "Meme Master!" 👍
Haha :D good one
Posted using Partiko Android
Thanks, appreciate a (legal) point of view that wasn't offered to me so far. Learned something :-) Cheers.
Glad it helped!
After spending some time doing some basic researching it really doesn't matter that the shareholders (stakeholders) were notified or had a say, that lays with the fact the company was sold outright, lock, stock and barrel, when that happens there is no requirement or participation requirement of a board of directors, stakeholders or witnesses. That's under existing merger laws, as such Justin can do whatever he wants up to and including a forced merger, he can change the name, he can change how it operates, etc. The only recourse or obligation moving forward to the existing sharesholders or stakeholders is that he has by law offer market value buyout to every stakeholder on the platform that does not want to move forward into the merger with him. Now if Ned hadn't been the major stakeholder in the company he'd needed approval from the board of directors....now let's just assume he may have gone that route, in that case it would have had to have been determined exactly who the board of directors were, were they a separate lot somewhere at corporate headquarters or were they the witnesses. After that determination they'd had to go to all the stakeholders and get them to agree to the sell out by whatever percentage would have been stated in any by laws, if they were none greater than fifty percent then it usually goes by gaining approval of more than fifty percent. So let's look at this as maybe there was a board of directors somewhere in the corporate line of things that we didn't know about who held more than fifty percent of the shares, that could have created the needed over fifty percent whereas notifying the rest wasn't needed. I only mention it because there were many claims of high powered accounts powering down in the last year so it could be in the realm of possibilities. If it were the witnesses then yes the witnesses would have been required to get over fifty percent of the people onboard to sell. But as stated above the overall fact remains, he sold out lock, stock and barrel and in a incident like that there is no recourse other than Justin is now under the legal obligation to offer market value to any stakeholder who doesn't want to move forward with him.
As for this soft fork they need to fully understand the implications of that move. This has been all the way to the supreme court. No company, corporation, board, absolutely no one within a company can freeze another members shares for any reason what so ever. They can't even implement a new rule to avoid a stakeholder from doing something they don't like. Which was the premise upon which the supreme court ruled when a company in a bid to stop a stakeholder from selling to someone they implemented a new rule that restricted how the stock could be sold. The court ruled that if the rule had existed prior in a contract then the stakeholder/shareholder would have been held to it but since it did not exist the rule technically oppressed a minority shareholder and judgement plus losses were awarded. It's called The Oppression of Minority Stakeholder law but the law works in regard to any attempt to obstruct another stakeholders stake.
One other thing that may help people, this is in regards to the US and in Europe but despite the fact that shareholders think they own part of a company it's been ruled that they hold no stake in that regard, at best when a company is sold under any circumstances, meaning whether outright or by the majority voting to do so those who objected to the sale were entitled by right at the most to be offered market value for their stock if they wanted to opt out.
Hopefully everyone gets together and they can work out their differences, if not maybe this will give people a better understand of some basic legalities involved here.
It feels like you're missing the distinction between corporate shares and cryptocurrency. Shares in Steemit have no legal relationship to the Steem cryptocurrency, they are two very distinct things.
Cryptocurrency holds value only because users of the network decide to give it value. And if a cryptocurrency loses those users, the value, in fact, goes to 0.
Also, operators in a cryptocurrency network are voluntarily running software on their own computers to support that network. They are always free to change the nature of how that software operates: they are under no contractual obligations to run a specific version of the software that operates in a certain way. In cryptocurrency lingo, this is called a fork. It happens quite often in cryptocurrency.
And Steemit itself has written forks of the Steem blockchain code many times, including redistributing funds in accounts as part of a hardfork. When that happened, the people running the Steem software on their computers had three simple choices: 1) continue to run the old software, 2) run the new software, or 3) run something completely different that they liked better.
For a more detailed explanation of this, I respectfully suggest you read my recent post on this topic: https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@blocktrades/the-fundamental-underpinning-of-blockchain-consensus
It's not completely simple, but if you're able to research corporate law, there's a reasonable chance you'll understand it. If not, let me know, and I'll add clarifications where I can.
.
I hardly doubt it will go to court, who here outside some on the lower tier want to see them brought into full compliance with the laws. They may even find it hard to find any attorney's willing to take either sides case considering attorney's who specialize in corporate/business laws (outside mob attorneys, lol) will probably laugh them out of their offices once they see how the system was founded and operates. (lol) Neither side may want the prying eyes of the legal system upon them, especially if it hits the news and the disgruntled masses who've left start ringing phones off the hook. I can just see them all standing before a judge trying to explain that the whole block chain concept is built upon the ideology it's a wild, wild west frontier where everything goes until, of course, .....
the legal system slaps them upside their heads and tells them 1800's is no longer knocking. (lol) Even if Ned promised he'd do this or that with that stake it still doesn't hold Justin liable to do it, at best they can sue Ned to get it back as I am sure that stake was included in the sale, a verbal contract can be just as binding as a paper one especially if those promises have been put out on the immutable block chain....I guess if that came to fruition you could label it a concept whose time has finally come. (lol) Yup ol' Ned could be forced to give up every nickle, dime and penny of that mined stake.
So far I only see two unmasked villains in all this and they could be hedging on a bet that others may not be willing to unmask themselves, like I said even if they did outside of attorney's who make a living defending the indefensible will try and pass this through the legal system. The San Francisco meeting will resemble more of a pre ok corral meeting to try and decipher how they can all come to grips with each other before an all out frontal assault happens in any judicial system.
One side point on the corporate legal issue, which I believe you have completely wrong: the new company is liable for claims made against the old company it acquired. Now, they do have the option of then filing a lawsuit against the shareholders that sold that company, if the liabilities were deceptively hidden.
But this is one of the real risks of a company merger: acquiring a company with unexpected liabilities from the past, and there's often terms in the company merger agreement, to allow for redress against the sellers in such cases or to hold back part of the payment for some time, to make sure no such hidden liabilities emerge.
I thought about elaborating upon that some more but decided it probably wasn't need but since you brought it up I will address that issue. There are questions involved as to whether he spent any of that money towards development as promised, if he did that may leave him off the hook if he didn't agree to use all the money for development. Since it was mentioned he did develop a few things it wasn't specifically stated that the money used came from the mining stake so I didn't know the particulars of where that issue stood.
He most certainly did state that ALL of the ninja-mined stake was for development of the ecosystem, including on a recorded program that was widely viewed by cryptocurrency investors. There can be no real doubt that such statements convinced investors to buy Steem (and certainly convinced some of us who were around at the time to not sell our Steem, or push forward with a fork much earlier).
!ENGAGE 50
@sunlit7 you have received
50 ENGAGEfrom @abh12345!View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.
You think the witnesses are responsible for you not being able to blog? (Ps communities makes you visible now)... the irredeemables list is something Steemit inc is in control of.. maybe if you ask Justin, he’ll fix it for you 🤷♀️ But it’s not the witnesses dear, they have no part in it.
.
I actually went to bat for him and got him off the irredeemables list, but he found he was on another blacklist and lost his mind and just started raging flagging random people.
so in theory that could be 40-60mil$ and he would have to pay every one of the stakeholders. that is like 1mil accounts :)
Sorry I should have worded that differently since we are talking crypto's and not stocks, stocks can't be powered down like crypto's, in order for no harm to come financially he's had to offer them adequate time to power down their stake. The main concept when it comes to investing, in a buy out, take over or merger it can't harm the investors. The positive side is that with so much at stake here on both sides the equation is this could drive them to the bargaining table without legal recourse, I would imagine that hinges on the amount of value Justin deems those holding it are worth in their continued participation. Hopefully in the end everyone will find some compromise and appreciation for the value and contribution all parties can bring together in this new proposed collaboration.
thanks. i to don't think this would ever come to court. it would be really stupid for both sides to push for something like that.
i had no idea about the legal point of this.
The key detail he's missing is that cryptocurrency node operators run software on their own computers on a purely voluntary basis: they have no contractual obligation to run any particular version that operates in any particular way.
This means any node operator can fork the software to operate as they please. There's no reasonable argument for harm, because the party claiming harm can simply run his own desired version of the software on his own computer. This just means there are now two "forks" of the software on the internet.
The "winner/loser" in the above case is just who gets the most users and which token gains the most economic value.
Note this happens all the time in cryptocurrency: that's why there's Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, etc...
and you learn new stuff every day :)
Thanks
Thanks for you opinion about this... you did address a lot of issues about the stake. As for justin, he did address that he wouldn't use his stake to vote for his "peeps" but he said the same with tron and just recently he did vote for 2 new super representatives. Let's see if he keeps his word. :)
.
Not saying it's bad or good, just addressing what he did.
he did it for a security reason and then withdrew the votes the day after, when the update was successful
Thanks a lot for explaining where that stake come from. I'm also supporting this soft fork and trusting witnesses is the only option we gave now. Steem is in their hands and they are doing something to save it. I hope all steemians will understand that.
Jeez I didn't know there were so many legal ramifications.
I did some basic research you may want to take a look at my comment.
Jeez I didn't know
There were so many legal
Ramifications.
- drakos
I'm a bot. I detect haiku.
@drakos the poet!
Nice to hear your words and voice! I appreciate your opinions.
I am butt a floating plankton here on steem as in the real world. I kid myself not to promises of politicians or Ned’s hair.
The shaved ball sack of Justin Sun and Ned would be similar IMO, both wrinkled and capable of much smell. And thus i expect them both to conduct themselves to there own selfish, smelly ball sack contentment.
A cock is a cock, do not be surprised by the doodle doo.
Very important butt plankton.
Yes, much butt nutrients floating around for free....very important It often seems.
This is not legal investing advice..... but Buy bonafide shit said the Butt.
Must watch video to understand the subject better.
At this point, I really don't see how anybody could somehow think that the SF was anything other than crucial for the blockchain.
The founders of Steem made social contracts regarding use of their ninjamined stake, that are yet to be uphold.
If Steem wouldn't have these vast amount of stakeholders, nobody would bat an eye, whether the stake were to be sold. But, we do have many stakeholders and most of them insist about the social contracts being uphold.
Social contracts should have been upheld with the correct owners. The promise was broken when Ned sold the stake. Not Justin's problem.
And if you try to make it his problem the only possibility I see is a fork and a lose-lose.
Although it might not seem so, he has the leverage. If we fork, he still can pump a coin with no fundamentals and make some money. Or even take a loss on an investment.
But if we fork, we lose everything. The whole point is to avoid a fork, but the actions taken will cause the opposite.