Nice to read your thoughts on this critical matter before us all @jaynie. I think it can be distilled down ...
"... and if you want to look at it from a business perspective it really IS as simple as that… UNLESS there is A) Obtainable legal documentation from Steemit inc. that verifies what that stake is or is not permitted for, or B) a way of proving that the stake was never Ned’s property to sell in the first place, thus rendering the sale itself invalid (I would assume). Unless one of those two things can happen here ..."
... to what is legally binding. The Soft Fork 22.2 decision made him an adversary. Full stop. Period. Both this man's resolve and resources are much more formidable than he is getting credit for in most of what I am "hearing" on our Steem blockchain. Certainly prior to the Soft Fork 22.2 decision ...
Either a provably and legally binding case needs to be made to him that relentlessly drives him into accepting the Soft Fork 22.2 "decree" or a profitable win-win for him needs to be negotiated. And the uglier and more expensive this mess gets, the more profitable the latter will need to be ...
The one interesting wild card in all of this is his perception of the damage being done to his reputation and his "brand" by all of the global media / social media coverage, which does not seem to be going his way. Lots of factors involved in his perception (not to be confused with reality) ... And what he may deem to be in his overall best interest, as a result ...
Your last point is important. And we will see what kind of man he is, I guess. Will he want to repair his reputation move on. Or will he want to take revenge on the tiny blockchain that made him look bad and tear things down (once he has what he wants.)
I don't know enough about him. What I do know (from what has happened so far - the statements made on the day of acquisition and subsequent contradictory statements, plus his actions of the last few days) is he is not someone whose word I would trust.
Agreed @felt.buzz ...
... now that "malicious actions" (his words) have been carried out against him. He is obviously (like far too many people ...) quite capable of justifying pretty much any steps necessary to protect what he deems to be his property.
Sadly, we'll never know what would have unfolded had the "Steem Consensus Witnesses" chosen to take the high road and, while certainly there was reason for (but unproven ...) suspicion, nonetheless lead with trust. At least until such time as he first took "malicious actions," which made it provably and unmistakably clear he had bad intentions.
As it is, the "Steem Consensus Witnesses" elected to "fire the first shot." And here we are ...