The hostile takeover of the Steem blockchain and the resulting creation of the Hive blockchain was a significant event in the cryptocurrency world that occurred in 2020. Here's an overview of what happened:
Steem Acquisition: In February 2020, Justin Sun, the founder of TRON, acquired Steemit Inc., which owned a large stake of STEEM tokens.
Controversy: This acquisition raised concerns among the Steem community, as they feared Sun might use the acquired stake to centralize control over the supposedly decentralized platform.
Soft Fork: In response, Steem witnesses (block producers) implemented a soft fork to temporarily neutralize the voting power of the tokens owned by Steemit Inc.
Counter-move: Sun, with the help of major exchanges like Binance and Huobi, used customer deposits to vote in new witnesses and reverse the soft fork. This was seen as a hostile takeover by much of the community.
Community Response: A large portion of the Steem community, including many developers and witnesses, decided to create a new blockchain as a result of these actions.
Hive Fork: On March 20, 2020, the Hive blockchain was launched as a hard fork of Steem. It replicated the entire history of the Steem blockchain, except for the stake owned by Steemit Inc.
Token Distribution: HIVE tokens were distributed 1:1 to STEEM holders, excluding the controversial Steemit Inc. stake.
Migration: Many Steem-based applications, users, and witnesses migrated to the Hive blockchain.
Aftermath: This event led to ongoing discussions about decentralization, governance, and the role of exchanges in blockchain ecosystems.
The Hive blockchain continues to operate independently, while Steem remains under the influence of Justin Sun and Steemit Inc. This incident serves as a notable case study in blockchain governance and community response to perceived centralization threats.
Would you like me to elaborate on any specific aspect of this event?
Some have argued that true decentralization of a chain with a pre-mine or ICO can not happen without an event like this, an external thread that brings the whole community together.
That's an intriguing perspective and touches on some fundamental issues in blockchain governance and decentralization. Let's unpack this argument:
Initial centralization: Pre-mines and ICOs often result in a concentration of tokens (and thus, power) in the hands of founders, early investors, or a small group of individuals/entities. This can lead to centralization of decision-making and control.
Gradual decentralization: Many projects aim to decentralize over time through token distribution, community governance mechanisms, and expanding the developer base. However, this process can be slow and may not fully address the initial power imbalance.
Catalyzing events: The argument suggests that a significant external threat or controversy can serve as a catalyst for rapid decentralization by:
Uniting the community around a common cause
Forcing a clear delineation between different visions for the project
Potentially resulting in a fork that more evenly distributes tokens and power
Community resilience: Such events test the community's ability to self-organize and respond to threats, potentially strengthening decentralization in the process.
Redistribution of power: In cases like Hive, the fork allowed for a redistribution of tokens, excluding the contentious pre-mine and potentially creating a more decentralized token distribution.
Proving decentralization: Successfully resisting a takeover attempt or forking away from centralized control can demonstrate and reinforce a project's commitment to decentralization.
This argument has some merit, as we've seen with cases like Hive and to some extent, Ethereum Classic. However, it's important to note:
Not all projects with pre-mines or ICOs necessarily need such dramatic events to achieve decentralization.
These events can also be risky and potentially damaging to a project if not handled well.
True decentralization involves multiple factors beyond just token distribution, including node distribution, developer ecosystem, and governance processes.
While external threats can indeed accelerate decentralization in some cases, they're not the only path to achieving it. Many projects strive for gradual decentralization through careful design of tokenomics, governance structures, and community engagement.
What are your thoughts on this perspective? Do you see other factors that might be crucial for achieving true decentralization in blockchain projects?
Based on my knowledge as of April 2024, here's a general assessment of the Hive blockchain compared to the legacy Steem chain:
Governance: Hive has implemented more decentralized governance mechanisms, learning from the Steem takeover attempt. This includes changes to witness voting and stake-weighted voting systems.
Community: Hive retained a significant portion of the active Steem community, including many developers, content creators, and dApp projects. This has helped maintain a vibrant ecosystem.
Development: Hive has seen continued development and innovation, with regular hard forks implementing new features and improvements. The development process appears more community-driven than Steem's.
DApps: Many popular dApps from Steem migrated to Hive, and new ones have emerged. This includes social media platforms, games, and various DeFi projects.
Token distribution: Hive's initial distribution excluded the controversial Steemit Inc. stake, potentially resulting in a more decentralized token spread.
Market performance: While I don't have current market data, Hive has generally maintained a presence in the cryptocurrency market, though it's typically had a lower market cap than Steem did at its peak.
Sustainability: Hive has demonstrated resilience by surviving and growing after the fork, indicating a sustainable model and committed community.
Innovation: Hive has introduced new features and improvements that weren't present in the original Steem blockchain, showing a capacity for evolution and adaptation.
The hostile takeover of the Steem blockchain and the resulting creation of the Hive blockchain was a significant event in the cryptocurrency world that occurred in 2020. Here's an overview of what happened:
Steem Acquisition: In February 2020, Justin Sun, the founder of TRON, acquired Steemit Inc., which owned a large stake of STEEM tokens.
Controversy: This acquisition raised concerns among the Steem community, as they feared Sun might use the acquired stake to centralize control over the supposedly decentralized platform.
Soft Fork: In response, Steem witnesses (block producers) implemented a soft fork to temporarily neutralize the voting power of the tokens owned by Steemit Inc.
Counter-move: Sun, with the help of major exchanges like Binance and Huobi, used customer deposits to vote in new witnesses and reverse the soft fork. This was seen as a hostile takeover by much of the community.
Community Response: A large portion of the Steem community, including many developers and witnesses, decided to create a new blockchain as a result of these actions.
Hive Fork: On March 20, 2020, the Hive blockchain was launched as a hard fork of Steem. It replicated the entire history of the Steem blockchain, except for the stake owned by Steemit Inc.
Token Distribution: HIVE tokens were distributed 1:1 to STEEM holders, excluding the controversial Steemit Inc. stake.
Migration: Many Steem-based applications, users, and witnesses migrated to the Hive blockchain.
Aftermath: This event led to ongoing discussions about decentralization, governance, and the role of exchanges in blockchain ecosystems.
The Hive blockchain continues to operate independently, while Steem remains under the influence of Justin Sun and Steemit Inc. This incident serves as a notable case study in blockchain governance and community response to perceived centralization threats.
Would you like me to elaborate on any specific aspect of this event?
That's an intriguing perspective and touches on some fundamental issues in blockchain governance and decentralization. Let's unpack this argument:
Initial centralization: Pre-mines and ICOs often result in a concentration of tokens (and thus, power) in the hands of founders, early investors, or a small group of individuals/entities. This can lead to centralization of decision-making and control.
Gradual decentralization: Many projects aim to decentralize over time through token distribution, community governance mechanisms, and expanding the developer base. However, this process can be slow and may not fully address the initial power imbalance.
Catalyzing events: The argument suggests that a significant external threat or controversy can serve as a catalyst for rapid decentralization by:
Community resilience: Such events test the community's ability to self-organize and respond to threats, potentially strengthening decentralization in the process.
Redistribution of power: In cases like Hive, the fork allowed for a redistribution of tokens, excluding the contentious pre-mine and potentially creating a more decentralized token distribution.
This argument has some merit, as we've seen with cases like Hive and to some extent, Ethereum Classic. However, it's important to note:
While external threats can indeed accelerate decentralization in some cases, they're not the only path to achieving it. Many projects strive for gradual decentralization through careful design of tokenomics, governance structures, and community engagement.
What are your thoughts on this perspective? Do you see other factors that might be crucial for achieving true decentralization in blockchain projects?
Based on my knowledge as of April 2024, here's a general assessment of the Hive blockchain compared to the legacy Steem chain:
Governance: Hive has implemented more decentralized governance mechanisms, learning from the Steem takeover attempt. This includes changes to witness voting and stake-weighted voting systems.
Community: Hive retained a significant portion of the active Steem community, including many developers, content creators, and dApp projects. This has helped maintain a vibrant ecosystem.
Development: Hive has seen continued development and innovation, with regular hard forks implementing new features and improvements. The development process appears more community-driven than Steem's.
DApps: Many popular dApps from Steem migrated to Hive, and new ones have emerged. This includes social media platforms, games, and various DeFi projects.
Token distribution: Hive's initial distribution excluded the controversial Steemit Inc. stake, potentially resulting in a more decentralized token spread.
Market performance: While I don't have current market data, Hive has generally maintained a presence in the cryptocurrency market, though it's typically had a lower market cap than Steem did at its peak.
Sustainability: Hive has demonstrated resilience by surviving and growing after the fork, indicating a sustainable model and committed community.
Innovation: Hive has introduced new features and improvements that weren't present in the original Steem blockchain, showing a capacity for evolution and adaptation.
As for the legacy Steem chain: