It's hard to see what a compromise would look like. Steem wants the contract with Ned about the use of the STINC stake honoured, and Sun wants to be able to sell that stake at any point of his choosing. These two lines in the sand don't share any overlap.
Maybe a compromise (if coding it is feasible) is for us (steem) to lock up a proportion (25%?) of the STINC stake for a set period of time (1 or 2 years?) to be used for growing the blockchain value. After that point all the stake is available for Sun to withdraw at his pleasing. Sun is ultimately going to get the latter with the help of the exchanges by the looks of it, so it makes sense to give him that ability while still working to grow the value of his investment.
Impossible. The "contract" with Ned was verbal and Justin bought that steem in the deal so it is his without restriction. I'm sure he was not told of the ninja mined stake and it's purpose but that does not change the fact that there was no written contract expressing exactly what could and could not be done with that STEEM.
As for us (our witnesses) locking up a portion of said stake, I find it highly unethical. I do not like businessemen like Justin and am definitely not on his side. As I see it though, he was sold a company and all its holdings and they are now his to do with as he wishes.
It is obvious that fuckingNed misrepresented what he was selling and Justin did not do his due diligence to know exactly what he was getting but that does not change the fact that Justin now owns that STEEM and can do whatever he wants with them.
Verbal Contracts are just as legally binding as written contracts, the only difference is how easy it is in order to prove what the actual agreement is.
That said, without knowing the exact details it's really hard to know what Neds legal obligations were, and what Justin's legal obligations are. This applies to both the verbal agreement between Ned and the witness's as well as the agreement between Justin and Ned.
Possibly, but we are in crypto world... At best unregulated and at worst unrecognised.
Even a legal suit would be worthless, as it would take months or years, and things move in the order of seconds or days here. Plus, who would stump up for lawyers?
Well said @bengy. I was just coming over to comment the same sentiment. I know verbal agreements can be binding but it's the wild west in crypto and there is next to zero precedent in this case.
Posted via Steemleo
I agree... We should treat this as an expensive lesson in fixing our governance system. It is hard on false assumptions, and the old witnesses need to be visionary and fix it... But I worry that self interest is stronger.
I tend to agree. It was nice to hear most get together on PAL Discord to try to forge a path forward but if/when we gain control I do not have high hopes of most staying together.
Posted via Steemleo
Then the only 'solution' will probably be a fork off to Classic Steem and we all leave this Steem blockchain empty. But even that has a lot of downsides. Or perhaps Sun will sell all his stake and fuck off. That would tank the steem price, of course.
I'm having a hard time seeing a scenario where the price doesn't not tank. Working together maybe? Probably too late for that.
Posted via Steemleo
We shouldn't try to bind @steemit to anything... It is a list cause and we need to learn. We based too much on off chain trust and words. Governance needs to be fixed immediately, and that will require courage, vision and sacrifice from the old witnesses...