I don't understand, there's no risk of hardfork because many witnesses and major stakeholders made a commitment not to fork if the power down stops, in other words the risk of hardforking is basically guaranteed if they continue to power down and your and other's commitment don't change.
Posted using Partiko Android
Given my experiences in business, even contractual obligations are often unfulfilled. Actually acting to absent from hostile action Stinc's stake is the only viable option available to Stinc.
US law requires corporations to maximize the returns of investors. A CEO that did not undertake obvious and available means of protecting the assets of the corporation from being seized or diminished would be subject to criminal prosecution if such an event occurred.
I don't think @ned has a choice of whether or not to powerdown, legally, since the threat to seize the stake in a hostile takeover was made. Retractions, assertions of fidelity, even written contracts to indemnify Stinc, are insufficient to assure that such threats aren't carried out.
Edit: there's also another matter. If I told you that I would punch you in the dick if you didn't give me your money, would you say that the only way to guarantee I punched you in the dick was to not pay me?
Assholes can just punch you anyway. Extortion isn't polite, and savvy business routes around it.
This is the part I'm most confused about. People think if Ned doesn't stop powering down it leaves only one option , and that is to fork?
No there are three options in the event of a continued power down. 1. Fork. 2. Accept a future with a dominant stakeholder whose stake is hidden. 3. Sell your stake and exit.
Have a funny feeling that 2 will most likely happen. Then, followed by 3.
You could be psychic.
This doesn't address the underlying problem which explains why none of this issues have been addressed in the 18 months since the introduction of linear rewards. The underlying problem is the inability and/or unwillingness of the dominant stakeholder to undertake effective development to address problems with the platform, or even to deliver on enhancements such as SMTs, while at the same time acting to keep all development in house, and obstructing and threatening anyone who tries to interfere.
None of that is changing here, in fact it is far worse due to the dominant stake becoming invisible.