I view it as a mistake to exclude any accounts beyond those affected by the 22.2 soft fork + the obvious sock puppet witnesses that were implemented to run 22.5.
Imo, we fork to get a chain that is true to our convictions of the purpose of the STINC fund that people had invested in, and thus to settle the dispute that occurred with the 22.2 fork, not to get what's most convenient and in the best interest to us. I'm sure we can all think of 10 accounts in a minute that we don't want to share a chain with. But building a successful economy means having people with polarized opinions still finding value in the same currency, not migrating away from eachother.
Of course I see how those who may have been previously excluded, and are now instead looking to build a good relationship with JS, would be more likely to dump their Hive tokens. Thus I see why some may think it is in our best interest short term to not airdrop them any tokens. But still, that's an ugly road to go. For many different reasons:
- We want to defeat the age old criticism of Steem having been launched with an unfair advantage to a small group of people. Having an exclusion list created by a dev team means we'll still carry that impression. Whether we like or agree with it or not.
- While not airdropping any tokens to them may not technically be taking away anything they don't own, combining it with hoping that STEEM fails (the way many now seem to do) still end in the same practical result. At least then allow the two chains to each pursue their own ambition, rather than trying to tear the other down in the hope of leaving them empty-handed.
- It lessens the demand for the token when stakeholders know that they may be omitted from any future fork as opposed to looking to invest in a protocol that will yield opportunities long term.
- It significantly harms the likelihood of attracting any further investment and user growth from the demographics mostly affected by the exclusion. Ones that have been an eager early adopter of crypto and Steem in particular.
I don't think this should be our judgement to make. Sure, theoretically, we are free to run whatever new fork we want to. But practically, there will only be so many forks that have a token people know of or care about. If we choose to be rigid about the reason for the HF and previous SF being related to the intended use of the STINC stake and its significance, then answering future questions will be easy. But when one starts to arbitrarily add accounts based on subjective votes, then it will raise a lot of questions, concerns and distrust by future investors and projects. As well as the overall PR and public perception.
I think the best move is to let the market decide which platform holds value, and instead focus on building a more attractive product with a more ambitious goal than surpassing a #66 token by market cap.
When creating a new chain, we can distribute tokens however we wish. In this case, we decided to not drop tokens on those who fundamentally disagree with the purpose of a blockchain. I have no desire to give free tokens to people on a decentralized platform and in a freely-associated community when those people support centralization and brazenly ransom user accounts with their centralized power.
I see that some people here don't agree and think it's somehow a PR mistake. I think those people are extremely myopic and maybe don't understand the basic principles themselves.
I think you need to give this a read or a re-read.
https://peakd.com/hive/@ats-david/do-you-even-hive-bro
Even if you are right, reputation does not work that way. Practically, people are going to know that some accounts other than Steemit, Inc's have been excluded.
It's better to start without a black cloud of negativity concerning the origin of the coin.
As for PR there is no black cloud.. seems those in the blockchain space (who actually understand it) fully support the idea of not freely airdropping a new asset to those who actively contributed in the destruction of the last one. As this wasn't about "opinions" it was about actions.
The only cloud I see is from those in this echo chamber who think people are entitled to things.
This isn't a PR issue in the slightest.
Great. I want people to know that some accounts were excluded. It was publicly announced for a reason and the rationale was explained. People can disagree and vote to overrule that exclusion.
I understand why you'd want that, they deserve it. Don't think it was best for us though.
I think you've articulated that point of view really well. But not everyone will be taking their time to delve into the long history of Steem and Hive and get the full perspective, only hear that Hive excluded certain accounts belonging to "normal" users.
need to think what is "just" not PR. what do you believe is right?
So did Justin sun receive 10million hive or not? Why the heck did cz binance get an airdrop? To be clear, I support the decision to exclude people (even though I was one of them, by mistake). But why, then, airdrop to those causing the hardfork in the first place. From someone with no inside knowledge, but an active user it appears very troubling, Imagine how it looks from the outside. I am asking, in the name of transparency and decentralization, that this issue be formally addressed by @hiveio or top 20 witness. If it already has please direct me to the post.
Edit: I get the code did the discrimination but certainly if you made an exclusion for Justin suns main account you could have for the others as well and not just hand over the power.
I don’t know how much HIVE Justin may have received. We don’t know customer balances on exchanges.
They received the airdrop because they stated that they would participate in it and distribute the HIVE tokens to their customers.
My personal opinion when discussing this before the fork was that we should not drop to exchanges. There are pros and cons associated with that but it was my opinion that the pros outweighed the cons in this case.
I don’t believe there were any exceptions made for any particular accounts. What exactly are you referring to?
The code didn't care about politics, beliefs, nationalities. It excluded accounts actively strengthening a sybil attack/hostile takeover. It does not make any sense to include elements of a hostile takeover in a new chain if the main reason to create the new chain is to get away from the hostile takeover. With the included appeal process, I feel this decision was handled fairly and professionally and was only logical.
Boil it down. Those are facts.
What's more damaging? Saying things like this:
and making it sound like those excluded accounts were hand picked, or simply sticking to basic facts of the matter, applying basic common sense, and moving forward with the appeal process? That list was never meant to interpreted as a final decision and just because so many took it personally, and thought it was about politics or beliefs or nationalities; that doesn't make it so.
The code didn't care about politics, beliefs, nationalities. Again, what does more damage? The facts or the twisted narrative?
You forget about the danger that would imply to the Hive chain providing those accounts the same stake they owned?
You’r words look so clean in an ideal world of perfection that I almost digested them as the only truth over the real dirty world.
Sry I disagree with your pinky vision of the blockchain ecosystem not to mention the visionary and messianic market.
Best wishes for you too, stay safe and Hive on! 😉
Thanks for sharing your great opinions that I fully agree with. Airdrop to the rest may lead to more dump, but most ready-to-dump tokens already in exchange wallets so I think the impacts from airdrop is relatively small. IMO, on the other hand, impressions we will have with the clear-cut criteria (revmoing Steemit's stakes for public purposes) are more beneficial for Hive in the long-run.
Thank you for your wise and just opinion.
Well stated, @fredrikaa. I couldn't agree more.
Personally I think excluding people because 'they have a different opinion' sets a bad precedent.
Very good points, I think any measures that can be seen as punitive or out of revenge or spite do great damage to the reputation of the project and are in direct contrast to the principles of decentralization.
And as seen below innocent users get caught in the crossfire trying to punish bad actors.
I say we move on and make hive all it can be and stop wasting time energy and effort beating a dead tyrant.