Have you overlooked my first sentence?
A week ago I would have agreed. Then I meet our honoured witness pfunk
“honoured“ was meant sarcastically. You might want to look at the amount insults and revenge phantasies in the comments of this witness.
https://peakd.com/@pfunk/comments
This is absolutely the kind of witness which would do another confiscation round at the next hard fork.
The vast majority of us do not see any seizure.
This is not an argument as the vast majority can be wrong.
And there quite a lot of people who considered the air drop exclusion to have been wrong. Especially since the script used for the list was faulty and added innocent people on the list.
'Bandwagon' is only a fallacy when we're not talking about something which is contingent on human views and behaviour. What people believe about the situation is a factor in how the game theory plays out, not just in DPOS but in all extant crypto financial systems.
You are saying that the same thing can happen in any hard fork, but it's not true. The viability of such an action is dependent on how participants view it, and people would view it differently than this situation.
You don't know that.
From the Steem soft fork 0.22.2 up and including Steem hard fork 0.23.0 I have seen people on both chains defending the actions of “there” chain as justified — accepting the explanation of the witnesses without questioning.
I see no reason why this trend should change now.
Needless to say that I personally speak out against all of the above and on both chains.