You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Update- Huobi started powering down
Whatever happens we really need to find a way to stop this kind of thing happening again. Nobody should be able to come in and buy the network.
My stake is quite small but my social stake is quite large having been here for nearly three years.
I would love to see a way that this is taken into account in the Witness votes. Something like a REP system that works and a way to use that to multiply my vote strength.
A new account, a week or two old should not be able to have such power when they don't have social skin in the game.
I wrote more about this in my latest post but it fell down the back of the Steem sofa.
Should Steem have three or four branches like the U.S. government in order to seek balance, like you said, @ammonite, in order to stop this from happening again? I'm not sure how the branches would work but perhaps there could be different teams. So, instead of buying just Steem and instead of only voting for just witnesses, perhaps we could have for example, Red Steem and Blue Steem, Red Witnesses and Blue Witnesses lol haha, no, but seriously they don't have to be those colors. But there has to be a way to put limits to these types of things like you said. So, it comes down to the architecture of the blockchain, the design, the structure. I'm a bit of a web designer but I don't know too much about blockchain. I could probably study it but I can't really say too much at the moment concerning how that would be done.
I am not sure if looking to the way democracy is performed in the world today will give us good answers. They all seem to be corrupted by money. The REP or UA system that could be redesigned to add more weight to our vote based on our interactions on the chain. I don't know much about the workings of the Blockchain either but I am sure there is a better way. Thanks for the reply
The problem is not republics like America but rather the infiltration into the United States for example. One big problem is namely corporatism which is not really a consequence of capitalism but rather corruption and infiltration and collusion with government via cartels, monopolies, authoritarianism, tyranny, etc. I agree with you that perhaps our REP system or upvoting system could be redesigned like you said or something. We should all at least experiment, talk about it, and try at least.
!ENGAGE 20
@joeyarnoldvn you have received
20 ENGAGEfrom @ammonite!View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.
He bought 20% .
Had acccount frozen ( hacked) . Did nothing .
What investor would ever touch steem again?
The takeover was to just unfreeze his account. Thats all.
If his account was never frozen the take over would not have occurred.
THe witnesses need to explain that one to the community.
It is a complex story with many different perspectives. I am aware of what the Witnesses did and although I may not be in full support of it I think they made the right call at that moment based on what was happening. Freeze until there was clarification.
The stake that Justin bought was promised by Ned to use for the good of the community through a gentleman's agreement. Obviously Ned is no gentleman and sold it on for personal profit.
Many investors got into Steem under the understanding that that was what Steemit's stake would be used for.
Let's hope everything can be resolved for both the good of Steem and steemit.
So any new large whale investor should have his account frozen until he clarifies his intentions? Justin had 20%, not a majority. Thats not decentralization. Thats centralization. Gentlemans agreement worth 12 million dollars? Who does that?
I believe the issue was more with the stake than Justin and rightfully so. For those of us who invested in the blockchain for the last few years I agree that trust in Ned to do the right thing was wrong.
For the record I don't think any whale investor should wield such power in governance unless they add to the community in other ways.
The Steemit account is an absolute majority (about 70%) of the actively voting stake. You can't expect all of the supply to ever vote because much of it is liquid for trading as well as dormant or even lost accounts.
The only way we know how much stake is going to vote is by how much actually votes and i that case it's a clear majority.
So freeze all large investor whales in the future? Freeze all voting bot accounts? This is a decentralized blockcain. ITs the risk we take, the community still has no idea what his plan was or how flexible he would have been with community response to specific ideas he had. He was our biggest new whale member, look how we treated him. We all share the same interest of improving the value of steem .
No.
Good then stop going on about legal documents (in your other replies). People are free to run whatever software they want, and that includes forks. Blockchains are entirely voluntary and don't rely ultimately on coercive enforcement by government institutions the way centralized systems do. That is their entire purpose for existing.
"We", in this context, means everyone. When Justin buys a company that has stake on a blockchain and that blockchain community has a clear understanding of how that stake is to be used, he violates that at his peril.
Absolutely and that includes insuring that the 65-75 million steam that was earmarked for development of the ecosystem is used for that, regardless of whether or not the shares in some company change hands.
In truth, the community accepted Ned's lies and spin for too long and enforcement of on-chain controls over that stake should have happened long ago, but better late than never.
Well said. What’s hilarious, to me at leat, is that this whole drama has been the only thing that’s gotten me (or many others) to actually be interested in visiting/using steem for the first time in like...forever.
Justin did not pay anything close to 12 million dollars. He got a massive discount, either because he know about the stake being a form of dev fund and thought he could jam it out anyway with the help of exchanges, or he couldn't resist a deal that was "too good to be true" and didn't bother to carefully look into what he was buying.
Maybe , Maybe not. Thats your opinion. This should be debate about facts. Legal documents, etc.
How much he paid is not an opinion, it is a number. The rest of my comment is a set of alternatives, which is also not opinion, as one of them must be true. Did I miss some other possibility? I don't think so.
@test45 you have received
15 ENGAGEfrom @ammonite!View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.
!ENGAGE 15
I can assure you no investor is going to be buying the ninja-mined stake that was promised for development any time soon. There has never been any issue with regular investors buying ordinary stake, but this is not that.
Present the legal documents. Its what makes the world go round.