You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit Inc Stake-Freezing Softfork Thoughts
Steemit made a clear and unambiguous promise that the stake they mined would be used for onboarding and development of the blockchain, not for personal enrichment.
Ned's Steemit made those promises not Justin Sun's Steemit. I think its wrong to expect Justin Sun to maintain promises he never made. Even with that aside, promises can get broken and that still doesn't make it right to freeze a man's stake in which he attained honestly via purchasing it. The time to fork out the ninja mine stake was long ago, its not right to fork it out after someone paid millions for it.
When you buy a company as a whole, you buy its assets and its liabilities. It's why you should do something called "due diligence" when you buy a company. By your logic, Justin could buy the company for $10, sell it back to ned for $10, and Steemit would still have no liability for the promise it made.
Also, there's plenty of evidence that Justin's team was aware of potential liabilities of this sort: they purchased Steemit inc for much less than half the asset value of the Steemit stake.
I'd like to see the legal document that your claim is based on. I keep seeing these debates with some on one side of the debate claiming Ned promised to never use the mined stake for voting ect. but I have yet to see a legal document that makes that claim true or enforceable.
Even if the claim was legally binding to the best of my knowledge Justin Sun didn't use his bought stake yet so he never broke any contract but still had his stake forked. To go even further, Justin Sun didn't mine the stake he bought it fairly and honestly. If the mined stake is getting soft forked then soft fork it all not just one persons. To soft fork someone stake directly after they bought it is a shitty thing to do. I think this was a short sighted move and I hope in the end everything works out for the best.
Wrong, you may want to reread what I put again. I said Justin Sun isn't responsable for another man's promises. Ned promises would still be his own no matter how many times he sold/rebought Steemit. A legal document would obviously change my opinion on some of these things.
I saw someone try to do an analysis based on contract law in a post here recently, maybe because the term "social contract" that was thrown around back then in graphene-based chains. But a legal claim would be more reasonably be based on fraud than breach-of-contract, I think. There's no need for a "legal document" in that case.
It's an interesting situation. For myself (legally) I would think Justin Sun has more on his side.
Thanks for all the back and forth.
Hopefully everything works out for the best for everyone.