As I said, the top witnesses made a very wrong and dangerous choice. Lock someone's asset is not the spirit of the blockchain. Lock asset is a nuclear weapon. Another nuclear weapon is exchange's vote. The two weapons should be the last choices but the top witnesses used one. So I think the top witnesses upgrade the conflict to the war.
I absolutely persist my opinion that people's asset cannot be locked and that's why I choose 0.22.5.
And I also confuse why the top witnesses did not lock coins when Ned was there? Is this a double standard way?
Respect is mutual. If Ned was the former leader of the Steem, do you think lock asset is a respect way to welcome a new leader?
If lock someone's asset becomes the normal state of the community, I don't think there is any need to explore the future of the community. What's to talk about after the assets have been confiscated? :-)
No, it was a mistake that we didn't want repeat again.
It was more of a delay than lock, to ensure that assets in question wont be abused past the unrecoverable point. Unfortunately there was high probability of doing so (abuse of non-voting stake by same party on TRON network).
No. Need was former leader of Steemit Inc. Steem is more than that. Steem has no leader.
While I have a lot of bad opinions now about Justin Sun, I also think that he is also a victim of a situation created by Ned, although, as mentioned already, I'm pretty convinced (due to value of contract) that Sun knew about problems, yet, didn't cared to talk and pushing changes without respect to governance rules (initial press releases about token swap through Poloniex, etc).
It was least disruptive way of dealing with existential danger of the platform.