RE: Softfork 0.22.2: why I didn't apply the changes to my witness node.

[travelwithus]

"stake on accounts belonging to Steemit Inc, the company that unfairly mined STEEM in the past and made social contracts to only use those funds for the Steem ecosystem"

Can you show me that contract please @therealwolf ?

Comments

[therealwolf]

There are many different instances where the social contract of using the stake for Steem was defined.

For example, in the 2017 Roadmap (https://steem.com/2017roadmap.pdf)

Decentralizing Stake
The Steemit, Inc.-controlled primary account, @steemit, which holds approximately 41% of the platform’s Steem Power, will be gradually divested of its holdings in an effort to increase promotion and development of the platform, and this distribution shall further the platform’s security through decentralization of voting power.

Several methods will be employed, including and not limited to: funding the continued research and development of steemit.com, the Steem Blockchain’s first and best application, promoting and publicizing the Steem Blockchain and features, hosting highly available services for platform users, sponsoring conferences and community gatherings, and sponsoring undertakings to build applications and increase user adoption across the entire ecosystem.

This will likely be a multi-year process, but is included in this 2017 Roadmap for the sake of clarity and understanding surrounding our organization’s plans and goals. We have several very large initiatives currently in research serving this goal, and the community should expect further announcements later in the year regarding our firm plans as it yields fruit.

Ultimately, the goal is to harmoniously align the interests of all participants across the entire spectrum of people using and trading in STEEM.

Here is a video where the social contract is mentioned:

[jamesbrown]

As far as I'm aware, nothing that you've presented is legally binding (wouldn't hold up as a legal contract in court). So, you're essentially admitting that you were putting your trust in Ned that he'd hold true to his words, am I right?

And that justifies sucking all the power away from the new owner of those Steem that he was holding when he made that "social contract", correct?

The way I see it, there's all kinds of risk coming into play with this choice to soft-fork away Steemit's influence on the chain, the biggest of which may not even be the potential legal issues. Steem may never be able to recover from the negative perception of what can easily be perceived as randomly deciding to delete the largest holder's stake. Who would want to invest into that?

[skramatters]

That ship sailed long ago my friends