Thank you for providing a very lucid and rational perspective @abitcoinskeptic, I think we really need more like this and less petty infighting.
I recognize the underlying dynamic here... in a different life, I worked in the Usability and Human Factors department at a Fortune 500 computer OEM. Usability was pretty much the "most hated" people in the middle who got to deal with developers and their egos on one side, and Corporate/Marketing on the other... telling each side why their passions and ideas don't function in the real world. (And then largely being ignored, till after a disaster when someone would stop into the lab and say "Why didn't you TELL us...!?!?!?!")
Well, we did. You ignored us.
But I digress.
I wrote a rather long comment on @aggroed's recent post... you can read it here, if you care:
https://steemit.com/steem/@aggroed/my-response-to-justin#@denmarkguy/q6w1gn
The TL;DR summary is that we don't know — and may never know — what Ned failed to disclosed to Justin in his hurry to get out the door. Chances are good Justin simply didn't know he was buying "encumbered" property, because it was not formally written anywhere that it was encumbered, and Ned didn't volunteer the fact, knowing that it might block his exit strategy.
We need to dredge up whatever hard evidence we can find of the intended use of the ninja mined Steem. Is there enough there to suggest an implied contractual agreement? Failing that, is there a sufficient trail of "use examples" vis-a-vis the ninja mine to create a trail of evidence that suggests a strong precedent of the intended use?
And then perhaps propose that a NEW account (perhaps "SteemDevelopmentFund") be created and some/all of the ninja mined Steem be agreed to be placed in that account, which will then be hard coded as a "special purpose" account (similar, but different from the "null" account) that EXPLICITLY can only be used for certain purposes. I could be "non-voting," distributions/use would be contingent on "X" ratio of witness support; distributions above a certain amount contingent on witness approval AND approval through an SPS-like community vote... lots of possibilities.
It may be that it is agreed that Justin gets to personally keep some of the ninja mined Steem, who knows?
And I really like the idea of someone like @apshamilton being part of a negotiating team. I hate to say it, but most developers don't have great business skills, negotiation skills and dare I say it? Social skills.
I'm sure a lot of people have similar experiences being a mediator between 2 completely different ways of thinking. I worked in an IT company, but that wasn't my role. I definitely don't envy you.
If I had to guess, Ned disclosed a lot to Justin in terms of the legal sale of a US corporation. As for Steem, that's anyone's guess. But I would hope Justin can pay someone to do his research. I'm sure they found lots of examples of the ninja stake. It would destroy their current narrative if they admitted otherwise. But you are right, purely speculation on my behalf and we may never know (I knew it wasn't Steemit's stake my first month here but I wasn't trying to buy it).
I do like the idea of a NEW account. This will obviously need to wait until Justin is ready to face the fact that few on Steem think the Steem belongs to him (I can't bring myself to agree with both Justin and Ned). In my mind, such an account would function as the current proposal system but only to give out delegations (people make a proposal for purpose/period and amount accounts vote, Justin can perhaps veto under certain conditions). Further, it would release this to Justin to sell slowly over time and perhaps in larger chunks if the witnesses agree things have been done (ex. not SMT cause those are done, but atomic swaps or marketing goals, etc).
I completely agree not all the witnesses have business skills, but as I listen to more of their discussions with Steem, I realize some do. Apshamilton would be a good person to have in at least one discussion. His opinions on the matter seem to be on point and he knows how to have a discussion with opposing parties.