This isn't that easy to answer.
Larimer was trying to figure out how to raise funds in an ICO type scenario without any of the legal repercussions, thus the mining. The mining would have been a good idea if it had been fairly executed. The original Bitcoin Talk Forums post had incorrect instructions, preventing normal users from mining when the topic of the post was asking them to mine. When they figured it out, he reset the blockchain, deleting their work and giving himself even more of an advantage. That's how that stake came about and it set the tone for the future. That statement by him is the norm; create obscurity while personally profit. I don't know what took place between him and Ned when he left. That's some background and in relation to your quote.
For the sake of some brevity, let's look at the 2017 Roadmap for starters. In addition to it there are several good recordings but I can't go through them in the middle of the night right now when the rest of the house is asleep.
According to the roadmap, the fact that the stake was to be decentralized and put to use for promoting, developing and supporting the Steem blockchain. There was very little, in proportion of the amount of owned STEEM, investment in any of the ideas in that roadmap. In Sept 2018, when Steemit Inc had a few marketing staff members and with the community there was progress being made, suddenly the staff were let go and potential stopped. In around April/May 2019, Ned promised to move a significant portion of the stake to the Steem Foundation and while he eventually provided some money for incorporation, the remainder wasn't transferred. Those are two roadmapped applications that ended with virtually no transfer. However, it was still understood and maintained that the purpose of the stake is to be use for a communal good in the end once Steemit Inc got on its feet, which is why it was left alone.
I'll add more to my reply when I can actually open up videos and tell you where to start them unless someone else beats me to it.
(Also, I removed you from the Spaminator blacklist.)
I doubt a roadmap would be considered any sort of promise or contract, but let's say it was for the sake of argument. Here are the key phrases:
The term "not limited to" means they could spend the funds any way they like as long as it can be argued it's for the "promotion and development of the platform," but of course the fork is preventing them from spending the funds at all, and thus they are unable to fulfill this promise because of the fork, right? Do you have any direct quotes from Ned or a link to a video?