Warning! This user is on our black list, likely as a known plagiarist, spammer or ID thief. Please be cautious with this post!
If you believe this is an error, please chat with us in the #appeals channel in our discord.
Hi Phil, thanks for your trust and kind words. Matter of the fact is the rankings don't matter that much and much has been shaken up. I'd rather be not number 1 and liked it for example to see @someguy123 on that position where he was at for a while with a staggering amount of MV votes.
I want to clarify to you that this softfork move was not done lightly. Many hours / days of discussion went into this. Then also logistic works like testing multiple testnets with multiple scenarios and drafting announcements.
This move had been done in silent because according to a supermajority of witnesses and other community members the risk of potential abuse had risen with the boom-tadaa sale of Steemit INC. The only way to prevent more drastic measurements and to assure the status quo in regards to the social contracts resting on the Steemit Inc stake about: non-voting and decentralised earmark was to softfork and only announce after the fact was in place.
Should this had become part of an open discussion, it would have been easy (3 seconds) to start a Powerdown by Steemit INC which might have required a hardfork to move away from. A hardfork would mean asking exchanges to upgrade too. Upgrade because of drama. So that is the main reason. Also this can easily be lifted, adjusted or amended.
Rest assured that this is a special painful action, which should have happened long time ago: Decentralising the Steemit stake through code. So dutchman is too blame for that naivety too.
Warning! This user is on our black list, likely as a known plagiarist, spammer or ID thief. Please be cautious with this post!
If you believe this is an error, please chat with us in the #appeals channel in our discord.
Hi Phil, thanks for your trust and kind words. Matter of the fact is the rankings don't matter that much and much has been shaken up. I'd rather be not number 1 and liked it for example to see @someguy123 on that position where he was at for a while with a staggering amount of MV votes.
I want to clarify to you that this softfork move was not done lightly. Many hours / days of discussion went into this. Then also logistic works like testing multiple testnets with multiple scenarios and drafting announcements.
This move had been done in silent because according to a supermajority of witnesses and other community members the risk of potential abuse had risen with the boom-tadaa sale of Steemit INC. The only way to prevent more drastic measurements and to assure the status quo in regards to the social contracts resting on the Steemit Inc stake about: non-voting and decentralised earmark was to softfork and only announce after the fact was in place.
Should this had become part of an open discussion, it would have been easy (3 seconds) to start a Powerdown by Steemit INC which might have required a hardfork to move away from. A hardfork would mean asking exchanges to upgrade too. Upgrade because of drama. So that is the main reason. Also this can easily be lifted, adjusted or amended.
Rest assured that this is a special painful action, which should have happened long time ago: Decentralising the Steemit stake through code. So dutchman is too blame for that naivety too.
thank you for the reply. all of that i can subscribe too. you know where my beef(s) lay.