My thoughts on Soft Fork v0.22.2

▶️ Watch on 3Speak

My personal thoughts on Soft Fork v0.22.2

▶️ 3Speak

Comments 121

Jeez I didn't know there were so many legal ramifications.

25.02.2020 00:08

Jeez I didn't know
There were so many legal

                 - drakos

I'm a bot. I detect haiku.

25.02.2020 00:09

@drakos the poet!

25.02.2020 14:45

I did some basic research you may want to take a look at my comment.

25.02.2020 17:44

@tipu curate

A huge hug from @amico! 🤗


25.02.2020 00:09

Congratulations @amico, you successfuly trended the post shared by @theycallmedan!
@theycallmedan will receive 0.26395875 TRDO & @amico will get 0.17597250 TRDO curation in 3 Days from Post Created Date!

"Call TRDO, Your Comment Worth Something!"

To view or trade TRDO go to
Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site

25.02.2020 00:09

Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 0/15 - need recharge?)

25.02.2020 00:09

According to the Bible, Are you one of the apostles of Jesus? Why do you preach?

Watch the Video below to know the Answer...

(Sorry for sending this comment. We are not looking for our self profit, our intentions is to preach the words of God in any means possible.)

Comment what you understand of our Youtube Video to receive our full votes. We have 30,000 #SteemPower. It's our little way to Thank you, our beloved friend.

Check our Discord Chat
Join our Official Community:

25.02.2020 00:09

Resteemit done Sr @thencallmedan..


25.02.2020 00:10

That took talent and effort! :O Bravo!

25.02.2020 00:38

thanks for all #theycallmedan

25.02.2020 00:12

Some good points in here.

25.02.2020 00:15

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.

25.02.2020 00:19

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.

25.02.2020 12:16


25.02.2020 19:57

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.

25.02.2020 21:16

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.

26.02.2020 01:49

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.

26.02.2020 02:02

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.

26.02.2020 02:15

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.

26.02.2020 04:55

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.

26.02.2020 10:47

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.

26.02.2020 12:17

the promise was broken when Ned sold the stake.

Im not following..
Yes Ned broke the social contract thats why witnesses are enforcing it now with code.

26.02.2020 12:39

What I am saying is that Ned broke it, so it's broken. Done. Not Justin's problem.

I understand you don't agree and I get your point.

26.02.2020 21:14

So if i break a law that means the law is now invalid because i broke it?

Im trying to understand what your point is here.

Yes, Ned broke the promise thats why soft fork was introduced so no one else can break the promise.

26.02.2020 21:36

How is a promise law? He didn't break any laws.

26.02.2020 21:43

That's the analogy. Replace law with social contract relating to the Steemit. Inc ninjamine stake.
Steemit. Inc is still Steemit. Inc, only the owner changed.

Nothing stopped once Ned sold. The agreement was still valid.

I'm very confused as to how you're defending this.
He wanted to dismantle the chain, swap the token, strip away anything of value, take it to Tron and let Steem die using unfairly acquired stake.

How in the world is anyone defending this.

27.02.2020 08:58

And yet these big accounts and witnesses are all going to the meeting with Justin Sun get their cut and he will take over. Regardless of where his stake came from. I am willing to bet that on March 7 there will be an uproar because of the things these great Steem protectors agreed on.

25.02.2020 00:20

So let me get this right, you're saying we're open for bribery from Sun to let him kill the chain?

25.02.2020 00:24

Are you?

I've seen you around here plenty, and to be quite honest: I trust you.
But can we trust the others?

Steem is a philosophical blockchain. It is not purely finance or purely for creativity. It exists to resist censorship, centralization, and the other issues that we've identified in mainstream finance and social media.

Treating this like a typical business is wrong. Even though it might legally be forced to be a normal business, that is not what the origin of all blockchains intended: Bitcoin was originally created to be a monetary token representing freedom and decentralization.

The ideals we believe in come before whatever is typically recognized as "the way business works."
We need to remember why we are here, and not elsewhere.

25.02.2020 00:39

No and I find it pretty offensive he's even insinuating that. Steem has not and will not block any other accounts for as long as I have a say in it, the reasons to why we went ahead and did it this time for the Steemit stake is said well enough in this video and has been explained in many posts currently trending. There is no way and no money in the world that's going to come between me and the integrity of this chain in form of the above insinuation. Steem is worth much more than money to me and it is bigger than any of us here today and bigger than the project that acquired it in my eyes. After years of emtpy promises I am hopeful though that the stake will be used better in the future and that both chains can come out of this beneficial.

25.02.2020 00:54

Let's wait until March 7 to see what happens, then you can shout at me all you want before that, this is in the air.

25.02.2020 00:40

You see @acidyo this has already gone from your hands, the thing is now that the stake that Justin Sun bought is ninja mined and according to all in favor of the soft fork this is really stolen property and Sun should lose it and it should be returned to I really dont know who. All that would remain for Justin is to try and get his money back from @ned. On the other hand if you do come to an agreement with Justin Sun basically you are agreeing that it is all right for him to keep stolen property. I do not see any alternatives to these two, what would follow if the first is your course are possibly legal problems if the second a complete reappraisal of the honesty of the top dogs and witnesses on Steemit. Can you see the problem you have gotten yourselves into?

25.02.2020 00:52

I can see how ill-informed you are yet still throw accusations such as those out there. I'll prefer to spend time answering people that don't act this way and have legitimate questions.

25.02.2020 01:09

Ok, I just said what I think, I don't see you denying it, makes me think I am at least onto something.

25.02.2020 01:19

You aren't and I am, see the comment above when I replied to someone not as accusatory.

25.02.2020 01:21

Ok, again let's wait until after the March meeting to see what happens. By the way don't think I hold anything against you, many times I have not agreed with your concepts and have told you so, other times I have agreed with you, I am not as naive or arrogant as to believe I own the truth.

25.02.2020 02:14

Maybe let me know the times you do agree then so I don't assume you're just trolling around for the sake of trolling. I have nothing against criticism but some users like to go against the grain just for the attention and I don't have time for that.

25.02.2020 02:26

Money talks! We know very well that many cryptos are dying to be adopted and such wishing to become bigger and better and more widely popular, so we shall see what the outcome will be for steemit this year eventually.

25.02.2020 18:17


25.02.2020 20:04

Aren't you the guy who threatens people with lawsuits over downvotes?

25.02.2020 20:35


25.02.2020 20:51


25.02.2020 21:16

*sold to the lowest bidder, in this case.

25.02.2020 00:21

Thanks, appreciate a (legal) point of view that wasn't offered to me so far. Learned something :-) Cheers.

25.02.2020 00:37

Glad it helped!

25.02.2020 01:39

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 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 old 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.

25.02.2020 17:37


25.02.2020 20:00

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.

25.02.2020 22:03


25.02.2020 22:10

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.

26.02.2020 02:48

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.

26.02.2020 03:29

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 (and known to be) 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).

26.02.2020 05:01

Thank you for clarifying that he did indeed promise that all the stake would be used for development. With that clarification though does not come with the allowance of freezing the stake, that process has to be ordered by a court of law usually done upon request of a court action that funds be frozen until the dispute is solved through the judicial process. The burden of proof would fall on those filing the compliant that Justin was liable either via obtaining the buy/sell agreement through a court order to see if there was a stipulation in the buy/sell agreement or some other means that he knew in advance what the stake was promised to be used for. Barring any evidence of proof the burden would fall upon Ned to return the stake and/or face legal action to get the stake back.

If I were in any of you guys shoes this is what I would do. First I would attend his open invitation for discussion whether in person or some other video conferencing measure(s) to try and amicability settle your differences. Remember though that if he bought the company outright he does have the right to do whatever he wants with it even if he grants that he knew the conditions place upon the mine stake and moves forward to use it that way, (if he doesn't, like I said the burden of proof will fall upon the other stakeholders shoulders and still may require legal recourse), it's his option still to merge the companies if he wishes. In that regard he will hold the upper hand. Do you really know for sure he bought the mined stake? If he didn't then that opens it up to he didn't buy the company lock, stock and barrel and would to have had better than fifty percent of any governing board of directors to sell and if no governing board of directors existed then he'd had to have had over fifty percent of the stakeholders granting permission to move forward with the sale under the terms it was written under and/or their participation to revise the terms of sale until such a quota was meant to move forward with the sale. Like I said I would earnestly try and resolve all the issues and if a consensus could be reached make sure it's put in writing. Now if you can't resolve your differences then you guys need to find someone(s) willing to come out from underneath their rock(s), to be representative of all stakeholders involved and file the necessary paperwork to move forward in the legal system. Anybody or those willing can be representative but you could all agree to share the cost of litigation to relieve the financial burden from falling upon one persons shoulders. The same process can happen if it's found Justin didn't know about the stake and you moved to take legal action against Ned for it's return. Keep in mind that not all countries laws are the same so depending upon where one is at they may or may not agree anything I have said has in standing with them, regardless this is a US based company and all laws here are applicable not any laws in Timbuktu.

I am going to wish all of you luck, my hope is a compromise can be found and the platform can move forward in a more vibrant and cooperative manner for everyone. There is a great deal of a number of us with our hopes pinned high that this transaction would move Steem where it needed to be in a more productive and successful manner, that means there are a great deal of a number of us hoping for a positive resolution of concerns.

Best wishes to you all.

26.02.2020 17:20

I suggest you read blocktrade's post about cryptocurrency forks. No one is making legal claims here, at least I'm not. People are deciding what software they want to use and what transactions they want to process, mostly on the basis of what is best for Steem, and what sort of substantive fairness, integrity, and consistency with stated purpose they have come to expect when it comes to usage of the ninja-mined stake.

You seem to think that you can force witnesses to process transactions they believe to be harmful and which they don't support, or that you can force stakeholders to elect witnesses who will do so. I don't see where that obligation comes from; they never made such a promise, nor entered into such a contract.

Anyway, I certainly agree with you in hoping for a positive resolution. But that doesn't mean that anything goes and we have to sign up for what many stakeholders see as a potentially devastating outcome by giving a potentially-hostile competitor controlling interest despite the stake the competitor is holding having been designated as non-voting. That is nuts.

Let's move forward to a positive resolution that works for Steem and that the voting stakeholders of Steem agree is positive.

26.02.2020 21:53

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.

26.02.2020 05:55


26.02.2020 06:27

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.

26.02.2020 14:49

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 :)

26.02.2020 00:06

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.

26.02.2020 01:05

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.

26.02.2020 01:27

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:

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.

26.02.2020 02:30

Shares in Steemit have no legal relationship to the Steem cryptocurrency

If that was to be held true then the issue of whether the mining stake is part and parcel belonging to Steemit does not exist. They are, after all just as you have stated, unrelated. But there is hope for you yet as.....

Cryptocurrency holds value only because users of the network decide to give it value

No, that would be the SEC Chairmans job of determining who and what holds value, his determination was that crypto's hold value just the same as fiat and are to be treated the same as fiat when moving forward in lawsuits.

And if a cryptocurrency loses those users, the value, in fact, goes to 0.

...and yet thousands of inactive accounts have proven that theory to be wrong, yes, thousands have left this platform and it keeps right on ticking, it's value has gone down but arguing the point of losing users and the effect it has had on the value so far seems to fall on death ears. Believe the point has been debated so much one could cite it from memory.

And Steemit itself has written forks of the Steem blockchain code many times, including redistributing funds in accounts as part of a hardfork

Which was one of the reason I ended up filing a complaint over a year ago. That complaint was taken as the intake worker determined my compliant was valid after posing a series of questions to me. It is illegal to redistribute funds from the lower tier to benefit the upper the "real" world that is called a ponzi scheme or close enough to qualify as one. Just because they did it and haven't been brought to task over it doesn't mean it's legal, what it means is that nobody who can afford to hire a lawyer and take them task themselves has to wait for the slow churning wheels of the government to get involved. When they look at, for example, someone like me who complains on the virtue of the offense instead of a huge monetary loss they just sit in a pile, as explained by the intake worker, until enough of these complaints pile onto someone desk or they get tired of seeing the company name always being complain about before they will finally act.

One other most on here Justin isn't hiding and he has the means, when it comes to the current issue at hand so I wouldn't underestimate that fact. He legitimately bought a business and he's entitled to do whatever he wants with it....unless it can be proven he didn't buy the company lock, stock and barrel whereas no input from anyone would have been required to be involved. Like stated above it would have to be determined what, if any, and how much came out of the mined staked for develop and if he was aware of that commitment would be the amount of liability held on his behalf, otherwise that would fall directly on Ned's shoulders....and still that would depend on whether he promised to use all that money or just some of that money as to whether he fulfilled his verbal commitment.

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.

One of the first things I learned on this chain when I came here was that the witnesses don't represent the users, it was during debates on if the chain was centralized or decentralized. In a centralized platform the witnesses would be considered the representative of the users, in a decentralized platform there is no go between the users and upper management. In a decentralized platform all users would have a vote on what changes would be made. When I tried to argue that because people pick the witnesses through voting to represent them that made the platform centralized, I was told by a witness during the debate that they don't represent the users that the users only pick those whom they want to run the nodes. I have never seen, and as many people can attest, that the questions you pose above have never been brought forth in a vote of the people from the witnesses as to which one of those questions should they apply to their actions. Furthermore, as many can attest, the witnesses end up all falling into line with the hardfolk despite that many users objected vehemently to that/those action(s). I'll admit that in order to maintain their status as a witness they'll flip flop it around better than What's Up on her best dressed days but they always go with the corporate flow. So what actions the witnesses take have no bearing on the majority of stakeholders in a representative way.

I started to read your linked article but I didn't have to get far, really I didn't even really have to go there even once I seen the word consensus in the title but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.

All peer-to-peer blockchains operate under some form of consensus. People often talk about the rules of the blockchain as defining the terms of that consensus, which is true in some sense, but very wrong in another.

Maybe now would be a good time for a refresher on that long arm of the law...


May I respectfully suggest you read the posted link again to what the SEC chairman had to say as that's the only persons consensus on the matter that really counts.

It's been nice chatting with you as I've often seen the name but have never had the opportunity.

26.02.2020 04:49

i had no idea about the legal point of this.

25.02.2020 01:39

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...

26.02.2020 02:36

and you learn new stuff every day :)


26.02.2020 02:48

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 for vote but he said the same with tron but just recently he did vote for 2 new representatives. Let's see if he keeps his word. :)

25.02.2020 01:58

he did it for a security reason and then withdrew the votes the day after, when the update was successful

25.02.2020 10:30


25.02.2020 20:02

Not saying it's bad or good, just addressing what he did.

25.02.2020 22:04

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.

25.02.2020 02:29

What a creepy dude that @ned is. Thanks for the video, Dan

25.02.2020 02:52

Hahah, I just laughed thinking about @ned being a creepy dude! lol


26.02.2020 02:43

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.

25.02.2020 03:01

One of the best explanations on the topic. Thanks.


25.02.2020 03:12

Another great one from the "Meme Master!" 👍

25.02.2020 16:54

Haha :D good one

26.02.2020 17:14

What a creepy dude that @ned is. Thanks for the video, Dan

25.02.2020 03:42

ROTFL witness supports the SF.

25.02.2020 04:35

Twitter is synonymous for flinging poo and letting things get out of perspective. Thing is, this was a deal a year in the making when Sun first went for Samsung. He has had his eyes on Steemit for just as, (if not) long(er). I don't think he's as stupid as some people believe. He worked on Ripple/XRP. He funded his clone, TRON. Once he realizes what he is getting involved with, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if he abandons TRON altogether and brings DLive back to us. Bwahahahahaaa!

25.02.2020 06:58

Thanks Dan!
Great info for people like me that are not that familiar with the situation.
And great having you here staying active to support the community!

Posted using Partiko iOS

25.02.2020 07:16

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.

25.02.2020 07:36

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.

25.02.2020 16:05

Great Insight. 100% Support this views. Let's get to work!

25.02.2020 07:47

Best video you ever made. I see both sides, @exyle makes good points as well in my opinion BUT.....a “social contract” can not just go away. Either Justin does not realize fully how the Steem blockchain works or Dan Misrepresenting the sale by telling Justin the coins were now his to do what ever he wanted with. In the end....I side with you and the witnesses because Justin does not own this chain, we all do. Justin can help us A LOT more than Ned ever dreamed of. Communication is key and thinking things through on both sides to a diplomatic resolution is a win for everyone. Good vid cuz.

25.02.2020 08:58

Thanks Dan for distilling the dynamics of whats happening with Tron/Steemit fusion, the players behind it, the possible legal risks and why its so vitally to protect the governance of the Steem blockchain. A real service to the community..

25.02.2020 09:29

Thank you for expressing your good opinion on the stake. We trust our Witnesses & their support to keep Steem on the move. We hope for softfork 0.22.2 to help Steem.

25.02.2020 10:00

dear @theycallmedan , a lot information issues you disscussed i agreed with you, my dear brother @theycallmedan you are 100% true, @theycallmedan
my good wish and pray for your family, as you mentioned in start of talk.

25.02.2020 10:58

:) thank you for the details and Research : thumbsup

25.02.2020 12:31

There are still several things that I don't understand about these new changes. But with this video I feel I learned more. Thank you!

25.02.2020 14:22

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.

25.02.2020 15:59

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.

25.02.2020 17:51

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).

25.02.2020 18:11

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.

25.02.2020 19:19

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.

26.02.2020 01:48

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.

26.02.2020 02:08

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?

26.02.2020 08:27

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..

26.02.2020 10:41

Okay. I hope you're right.

26.02.2020 12:11

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.

02.03.2020 19:49

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.

03.03.2020 04:07

Of course his interest was Tron.

I was saying I was right about the leverage, how is this self deception? It all ended up in a shitstorm where no one wins.

It was just a dumb move risking everything and it did not payoff.

03.03.2020 10:29

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.

26.02.2020 13:10

I saw the owner for what they where 2 years ago. Shady, no real communication and a huge lack for action. Yet everyone called me an A hole. Oh well :) It's pretty easy to judge one character when you look at their actions instead of what they say.

25.02.2020 16:42

Thank you for this explanation @theycallmedan. In the midst of all the foolishness I see "in here" far too often, it was helpful to me to listen to the historical perspective you have provided. In doing so, you have made it possible for us all to be a little (hopefully a lot!) more grounded in the Truth ...

If you are inclined to do so at some point, I would welcome your perspective on what to me is an essential business aspect of our Steem blockchain. Which Justin Sun presumably already knows about and has some plan for handling.

What is that?

How covering the cost of providing the servers hosting all of the text, images, videos, etc., upon which the blockchain is mission-critically dependent, is currently handled (wasn't the so-called ninja-mined stake sold monthly to pay these costs?). And, with whatever lessons have been learned from the past, how it should best be handled in the future? In this new "partnership" with Sun and TRON ...

If this has already been covered elsewhere, I would be very grateful for a link to it.

25.02.2020 17:05


25.02.2020 17:27

I really needed to hear your opinion in the midst of all the confusion. To avoid putting that stake at risk makes more sense than majority witnesses taking a random decision based just on fear of trusting what was going to happen with it. Now that this is clear i understand that it wasn't a decision taken without considering that the stake was never intended for voting and that it was to avoid a possible misuse of that stake. Therefore it was a wise decision? Whatever it is, it permeated across our blockchain that only a few could just nullify an account of simply freeze it. I strongly believe that Justin's attitude towards decentralization and his intentions are legit. Now everything makes so much more sense. Thank you so much for your take i this and i really enjoyed you analogies with a marine 😅. Awesome take. Totally agreed!

Posted using Partiko iOS

25.02.2020 17:51

Time and effort blogging IS money, this is a thought that I have had for a long time and with these issues, I am glad that it is finally part of the conversation. I think the witnesses are making lemonade out of lemons, stuck between a rock and a hard place.

What we have is truly unique and special so it makes sense to think that it is worth protecting. It rings true that this isn’t just locking someone out of their stake and I can only hope that we, as a consensus, stake based ecosystem, can spin it that way to the greater crypto community.

It is a tough message to express, but it makes sense since Steem has attracted many non-crypto investors through the years who deserve to experience some kind of decentralized digital reality.

25.02.2020 18:28

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.

26.02.2020 06:45

Very important butt plankton.

26.02.2020 06:49

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. 🤣

26.02.2020 07:01

What a crazy situation. I hope it all goes well.

26.02.2020 15:33

I hope this goes well, I really do.

26.02.2020 15:40

26.02.2020 15:52

Congratulations @theycallmedan, your post successfully recieved 0.26395875 TRDO from below listed TRENDO callers:

@amico earned : 0.1759725 TRDO curation

To view or trade TRDO go to
Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site

28.02.2020 00:51

Man. It is confusing. Are we going to head into a hard fork?

28.02.2020 17:39

Justin Sun bought with money but was robbed. And in excuses, you are a monster who has lost rationalism without a basic conscience.

29.02.2020 14:58

Says the guy retaliating with downvotes on innocent users like @taskmaster4450 after crying to remove downvotes. So you do speak english then? I'm guessing you understand the EIP and just act dumb because the only thing that matters is earning more Steem, yeah?

01.03.2020 13:26