Mspwaves will be hosting another steem town hall today at noon. We're looking for help today though. We're asking everyone to help find every reference possible to the steemit stake being
github, twitter, bitcointalk, youtube, official publications are all fair game. Please help by putting links you find as comments in this post.
We cannot fully control this decision we must find A solution to support Steem's Blockchain development team and constantly follow updates to see what this will turn out to be.
Congratulations @aggroed! Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following categories:
I listened to the meeting with Justin and some of our witnesses and that was a shit show. We need to find a couple people that we want to represent us as a community.
Steemit Inc reserves they were called in the first mention I can recall of the Steemit Funds designated for development.
Justin Sun is a major Psychic Leech
Thank you for this list and town hall.
We need to help justin explore the idea that steemit stake is not his private property.
Coolheads must prevail in the meantime. He can sell 1/13 a week if we cannot stop him or convince him to wait a little while.
A summary of the good evidence we've found in the last 4 hours. https://steempeak.com/ninjamine/@apshamilton/evidence-of-steemit-inc-making-representations-about-use-of-ninja-mined-stake
Its enough to present to Justin as Hors d'oeuvre.
Hi @aggroed, i've got your name from @themarkymark about give an answer to my question: https://steemit.com/hive-149678/@intellihandling/what-happens-to-palnet-airdrop
hack.md source <-Steem INception some ninja/ pre-mined stake links and recent info for context.
#ninja #premined #steem
https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues/324 August 2016
"This feature could be used by @steemit to create a binding contract with the community that the account could not be used to:
take control of witness queue take control of all content rewards"
Clearly an expectation of community which Steemit Inc employees did not dispute and indeed accepted the blockchain code change that went into a later hard fork.
There's two different things to note here.
The legal aspect and the moral aspect.
Legally, the community is completely in the clear since the terms of service for steemit are clear as day: https://steemit.com/tos.html
All proposed Steem blockchain transactions must be confirmed and recorded in the Steem blockchain via the Steem distributed consensus network (a peer-to-peer network), which is not owned, controlled, or operated by us. The Steem blockchain is operated by a decentralized network of independent third parties. We have no control over the Steem blockchain and therefore cannot and will not ensure that any transaction details you submit via the Services will be confirmed on the Steem blockchain. You acknowledge and agree that the transaction details you submit via the Services may not be completed, or may be substantially delayed, by the Steem blockchain. You may use the Services to submit these details to the Steem blockchain.
If Ned misrepresented Steemit to Tron or provided any guarantees to the contrary, that is between them.
The moral aspect should be covered by the material gathered already and various statements of Ned made over the years. It does not have to be "legally-binding" as there is no legal issue here. It just has to show that the witnesses did not behave immorally.
That being said, I think the soft fork was a rash/rushed decision that should not have occured.
Here is something posted by @joseph in 2016 that is directly responsive to your inquiry and present need.
"...people like @smooth, @berniesanders, @steemed, @witness.svk, @pharesim, @abit , @arhag, @complexring, @blocktrades, @tombstone, @summon, @cloop1, @steempty, @blackjack, @roadscape, @riverhead, @pumpkin and even @wang."
Have more information as they were personally witnesses to the launch of Steem, and may have records maintained from that time, as the post by @joseph indicates.
@joseph indicates he personally invested in Steem as a result of the statements of @dantheman regarding the use of the stake he, @ned, and Stinc were acquiring through the mining process they controlled.
"When I noticed the steem thread a couple of weeks after the re-launch it only took me a few hours to read and understand, 24 hours later I was mining Steem, not as early as everyone else. So to make up for lost time as soon as steem hit bittrex exchange I purchased steem with btc and sent it to my steem wallet to vest."
This reveals that investors relied on those assertions, and that those assertions are obligations on that stake presently possessed by Tron and @justinsunsteemit. Since I can find this record of those assertions in the few minutes since you posted the OP, it is clear @justinsunsteemit could have employed an intern and a couple pots of coffee to find these and more that remain publicly available on the blockchain as part of the due diligence concomitant on the purchaser of a corporation in order to fulfill the obligations of that corporation applicable to whoever owns it.
The claims of Roy (whoever he may be) that those obligations do not affect Tron are easily dismissed, and the stake acquired by Tron is subject to the conditions Stinc placed on it. Tron now owns that stake, and the obligations it's possession has undertaken to investors now pertain to it's ownership of that stake. They bought something with specific capabilities and restrictions placed on it. If they had bought a car, they could not drive it to the moon, because the car is restricted from self propelling to the moon. Similarly, they cannot simply vote that stake in order to effect governance of the blockchain, nor just sell it on exchanges and have a party in Aruba.
These are assertions @joseph alleges were made by @dantheman during the creation of Steem:
"Most of what we are mining will be given away in the future, so what ever concerns there are about our early mining dominance will not matter in the long run."
"Before everyone gets steemd (let the puns commence!), let me explain a bit about what is going on with this launch:"
"We want to have a large amount of STEEM to give away via faucets We don't want to spend a lot of money competing with miners just so we can turn around and give it away So we have intentionally made the launch unappealing so that we could execute a longer-term strategy. What this means is that anyone who reads the code and identifies the value within has a huge opportunity, you can get STEEM the cheapest you ever will be able to and therefore are rewarded for your efforts."
"If you are offended by any of the following then it means you do not get the big picture and will ultimately miss out:"
"name squatting less than 100 names (registered via mining) dev mining with 300K HPS (almost nothing really) not knowing what this is all about dev getting their STEEM cheap (which means others get it cheep too) initial centralization of mining someone owning a large fraction of what they created All crypto-coins need a business model and a development team behind them or they will fail. Most coins opt for a pre-sale, ICO, or private mining."
"We have instead opted to go for public mining but low information, which means we are giving savvy miners and people willing to look at our code a HUGE advantage."
These are examples of representations made prior to the investment many have undertaken to acquire Steem subsequent to this mining effort, that significantly restrict and limit the uses to which that stake mined by @dantheman, @ned, and Stinc, can be put. Since @justinsunsteemit and Tron have purchased exactly what Stinc sold, which is subject to these representations and limits, @justinsunsteemit and Tron are subject to these representations and limitations.
Thanks!
@aggroed I'm nearly sure I read something in the dev slack a long time ago. Is there a database or api access to archived stuff and who could get me access.
@arcange should be able to scan the sql for key words in the comments on the blockchain.
DanL might also be able to help if someone was in contact???????
Trying to be neutral as possible here - this Steemit Inc.'s disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER Steemit Inc. (The “Company”), is a private company that helps develop the open-source software that powers steemit.com, including steemd. The Company may own various digital assets, including, without limitation, quantities of cryptocurrencies such as STEEM. These assets are the sole property of the Company. Further, the Company’s mission, vision, goals, statements, actions, and core values do not constitute a contract, commitment, obligation, or other duty to any person, company or cryptocurrency network user and are subject to change at any time.
Source: https://steemit.com/about.html
I know this is not the evidence, you are looking for - but we have to face the facts here.
Clearly you nerds aren't the most litigious bunch... I'm not even going to waste my time or thumb pressing on this absurd premise.. If y'all can't move on and realise you have no leverage on this matter it's only a further demonstration of your collective incompetence in business as well as governance.. Basically, you look more idiotic than before, which is stupefying..
You've got just enough time to watch this while waiting...
https://3speak.online/watch?v=brianoflondon/etrttdqe&utm_source=studio
And so the Legal battle begins... hopefully we find something binding 🙏🏽... then he/we can go after Ned 😒
This sounds like a great idea. The truth is still the same. Blockchain technology is like the Wild West. If there is no sign legal document, there is nothing. I don't know a judge anywhere that would try to uphold a handshake agreement (or a post or promise) between two parties, when a third party bought it and has the legal documents to prove he owns his stake. I love to watch all of the passion that is happening, but I think that the Steem Witnesses may be getting alittle out of their wheelhouse when they are trying to argue the definition of a legal contract, and no one sounded willing to create a legal document with Justin. You just seem to be gathering more documents that show exactly what everyone already knows. Ned made the "deal"...and no one denies that. What do you honestly think that this will achieve, even when they have no plan to uphold Ned's handshake? Seems like saber rattling. Cheers.
github, twitter, bitcointalk, youtube, official publications are all fair game. Please help by putting links you find as comments in this post.
Indeed. Let's get the evidence written to the blockchain all in one place! I'll make sure to upvote any original references and others should do the same!
Best to use eSteem search function to search on key terms. I have used it to great effect to collect evidence for the Crypto Class Action.
Hope this helps :)
Perfect, those actions you request is exactlly what is needed. I for one (and I'm sure many others) will be interested in seeing what proof or lack there of comes of this.
My opinion has turned alot this past few days. Kinda glad you guys are fighting so hard. After hearing that witnesses and sun convo I hope you take back the chain
What are the plans after you guys take back the chain tho? Like his stake, the exchanges stake? Are they going be left alone and 13 week power down?
Original Message: Huh!
I am okay for the 1.non voting
All the rest is up to Justin Sun. He bought it legally and therefore we cannot decide unilateraly to do whatever we want with this stake ! That will be equivalent to stealing and therefore I would not support it…
We have to find a solution to support Steem's Blockchain Development Team but if Justin bought Ned's stake, we cannot take it away from him except if it was writtent in a contract that he couldn't use it as he pleases (which I Believe was not the case).
@aggroed is actually looking for proofs that Steemit Inc. said they would use their pre-mined stake to do the Following.
- non-voting
- used to develop the chain
- used for onboarding
- any other mention
Sorry for the misunderstanding
Passionate Witness for Peace, Abundance, and Liberty. Founder: Minnow Support Project, MSPWaves, Keychain, Hive-Engine, and Splinterlands. Disfavors govern...
