Steem has suffered a miasma of accusations since it was mined into existence, due to certain aspects of that ninjamine that were easy to claim enabled the founders to accumulate most of the stake while it was being mined.
After @dan left to create EOS, @ned remained in possession of that stake (and his 51% of Stinc) until earlier this month, Feb 2020, when he sold it. @ned had frequently alleged he would not deploy that stake to effect governance of the blockchain, and he did not. However, at his sole option, at any instant in time, he could have voted in 30 witnesses, deployed a pre-prepared HF, and completely centralized Steem.
Now @justinsunsteemit wields that power, and he also has refrained from deploying it to effect instant governance of Steem at his sole option. But, he has used a similar stake in Tron since his purchase of Stinc, contrary to his prior allegations he would not, to effect influence on governance of Tron.
Clearly, this alarmed stakeholders in Steem, and the witnesses have acted to 'temporarily' limit the ability of the founder's stake to be sold, transferred, or used to vote witnesses, keeping it in their control. While they see this as a necessary temporary measure until guarantees can be had from @justinsunsteemit that he will keep his word regarding not using that stake to effect governance, in fact their action has deprived an investor of the benefits of their asset, and constitutes a tort. This is actionable at law.
Even if one avers that the founder's stake has limited authorized use, i.e. to fund development as the founders always stated, that stake cannot be used for that purpose under it's present restrictions, and it's owner has been harmed financially.
The actual problem that causes that founder's stake, roughly ~1/3 of the stake on the platform, to be a threat to decentralization is that stake is used to vote for witnesses 30 times. If you own 1M Steem, each witness vote you cast is for 1M Steem. This gives you 30M Steem worth of influence over governance of the blockchain. If you hold 10 Steem, each witness vote you cast is worth 10 Steem, giving you 300 Steem worth of influence over governance.
The difference between these stakeholders is not 999,990 Steem, as their actual hodling provide, but 29,999,700 Steem. This is because each Steem is used 30x times to exercise influence on the witnesses.
As long as the founder's stake has existed, this has been the rule governing how it would be able to effect influence, meaning the ~75Million Steem would be able to wield 2.25Billion Steem worth of influence - enough to instantly elect new consensus witnesses.
The actual problem is not the 75M Steem, but the 30x multiplication of influence large stakeholders have enjoyed to date over the majority of stakeholders.
I strongly urge the witnesses to immediately rectify the actual problem that threatens decentralization of Steem, enact 1 Steem = 1 witness vote, and then end this tortuous deprivation of an investor of the expected benefit of their purchased asset. Not only is the problem potentially litigable, but the odor will penetrate every forum where crypto enthusiasts confer.
Steem has reeked of inequity since the ninjamine, and investors have failed to bring the moon shot as a result. Today - right now - the consensus witnesses are raising that stench to an intolerable reek, and are availed the deodorant of an equitable resolution to the actual problem of centralizing inequity over Steem governance.
Enact 1 Steem = 1 witness vote and give the man his money back. End the special privilege ninjaminers have wielded to influence governance to date, end the threat - and practice - of centralization, and make governance of Steem equitable at last.
Come out of this smelling like manure, or smelling of roses.
You decide.
Edit: I strongly urge substantial stakeholders that aren't witnesses to carefully consider what this will mean to their hodlings. Tortuous harm to an investor that purchased their stake will bode poorly for stakeholders going forward. It sets a bad precedent. Further, expect consequences to never be the same.
Ask yourself if you would seek to remedy this harm if it were done to you, in a court of law.
Then consider what the market will see if the inequity affecting governance of Steem is rectified. Maybe your stake will be worth more than $.20/Steem soon, if investors see that the problem of governance is largely equitably resolved.
Give it thought.
Edit: a problem with this resolving the current concerns that are the impetus behind the soft fork is inactive accounts, which I have failed to reckon and both @smooth and @timcliff have corrected me regarding. In fact the founder's stake is too large to wrassle into submission by simply effecting 1 Steem = 1 witness vote, because folks have lost their keys and can't vote, or don't vote for other reasons, and this leaves @justinsunsteemit's stake about 70% of voting stake.
Nonetheless, we are in the situation we are in vis a vis the founder's stake, and should solve the inequity problem and end the tortuous harm instantly as possible. Regarding the founder's stake, when the dance music starts, sometimes you just dance with the partner you've got.
Better times will be had if you don't piss them off right away.
So basically 'code is law', unless 20 people don't like the law anymore...and can then change it, to the detriment of other peoples stake?
Mmmmm
Authoritarianism, anyone?
Does it really surprise you?....poor valued-customer still raging on about our wholesome decentralized system that's never been decentralized. Somebody please buy that man a new pair of bi-focal's.
You're not wrong. I persistently advocate for equity in all interactions - and continually experience dissatisfaction.
Not even twenty I am trying to find out exactly who
20 IS AN EASY NUMBER WRITE THO.
lol WTF I guess you dont really give a shit ?
...about what?
I think they're talking about the top 20 witnesses.
IMAGE SOURCE
Also, here, https://steemd.com/witnesses
A supermajority of Steem consensus witnesses is 17.
Good points @valued-customer. I don't know if the action you suggest could have been made immediately via a soft fork, so maybe the safe temporary option was to do what was done. For now.
Not a dev, but I believe the change I propose would indeed require a HF. Nonetheless, I believe that is instantly necessary, to end the tortuous harm being done, and secure the decentralization of the chain to the degree possible.
It's about time stake wielded equitable influence on Steem IMHO.
Thanks!
Well written post. I must say, this softfork action that has been taken is kind of scary in some ways, and I'm not a huge fan as it can cause more harm than good. It can also be seen as other things too lol (you know what I mean). As you know, I wasn't a huge fan from the beginning with all the fuss that was being made on mostly speculative information and social media posts (which I think is just a PR exercise and too much emphasis was being put on that). I'm definitely no expert in these matters so I will entrust that the witnesses are doing the right thing by us all...I really hope so anyway! The only side I'm on in this fight is the Steem side. The chain itself...just like you.
I reckon we're all on the same team: our wallets. Everyone in this deal wants to make money, and if we work out our differences amicably that will be a lot easier.
Thanks!
@valued-customer, thank you for supporting @steemitboard as a witness.
Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
Once again, thanks for your support!