I don't find the term social contract useful, and don't recall why you began using it. Regardless of it's etymology, what does matter is what these assertions by community members mean in reality to Steem.

During the last 4 years, that stake has been stated to not be applicable to governance, and it has not been. I has been claimed to be earmarked for development, and it has been. Investors plunked down money to buy Steem based on these facts.

If those investors now are harmed because the corporation that made these statements and took these actions has completely renounced those policies, then I reckon they have a cause for action to hold Stinc's owner(s) accountable for that harm.

Certainly those whose funds have been seized by exchanges and used to govern the Steem blockchain have cause to seek remedy at law.

It is notable that the language we use on our posts and comments isn't necessary defined the same in those environments as it is in court. Neither are certain terms useful in certain contexts, like 'social contract' in a court of law.

Whether or not @ned, @justinsunsteemit,@dantheman, or @steemit have made social, or other contracts, via their written statements really isn't something we can settle here. What we can be sure of is that if we don't restore community consensus to Steem we'll lose Steem altogether, and those questions will be settled by those injured parties, or litigated instead, to answer them.