Should there have been a Contract in place?
Open Letter to the #Steem Community
Dear Community
In light of the recent announcement regarding the purchase of #Steemit and the "Ninja Mined" #Steem Stake by Justin Sun from Ned Scott, I would like to reach out to the Community and share with you my thoughts.
First of all, I would like to once again express my best wishes to Ned and wish him all the success for the future.
Secondly, I would once again like to congratulate Justin Sun for the acquisition.
Thirdly, I would like to say a massive thanks to everyone who has supported the sale.
As we all know, a lot has happened since the announcement took place predominately around the ownership of the "Ninja Mined" #Steem Stake and whether this #Steem was in fact Ned's to sell.
Over the past few weeks, I think it has been very clear to those that follow my Blog as to how I see and perceive things.
Sure, this kind of thing is not usually black and white and in this case I fully understand and appreciate both sides of the debate.
Setting aside the measures that have been taken to temporarily secure the #Steem in question until an Agreement has been reached, the purpose of this letter was to focus on any Contractual Agreement, whether in the past or in the future.
Assuming that the acquisition of #Steemit by Justin Sun from Ned has the full support of the #Steem Community, with the ownership of the "Ninja Mined" #Steem Stake the only item up for debate, I would like to raise two very simple questions and these are "...should there have been a Contract in place and if so, who would have signed it?"
From a pure contractual point of view, I would have said absolutely.
Sure, I totally understand that there was some sort of Verbal Agreement between Ned / #Steemit and the Community and / or that it was written down as an Intent, but sadly I am not convinced that this would stand up to scrutiny.
Having an Intent is one thing, but having a Contractual Agreement is a completely different ball game, not to mention under which jurisdiction it would be made in.
While the debate continues as to who actually owns the "Ninja Mined" #Steem Stake, whether it was Ned's to sell or the property of the #Steem Community, somewhere down the line if the transfer of this #Steem is agreed or not, will there be a Contract in place?
If so, who would sign it on behalf of the #Steem Community?
I have raised this now, purely to pave the way for any future Investor(s) wishing to take a large stake in #Steem.
As #Steem matures in the coming few years, how this "Ninja Mined" #Steem Stake is dealt with will be vital to the development and growth of #Steem and will set a precedence for Investors to follow.
Looking forward to receiving any comments you my have.
Kind Regards
Stephen
I would propose that Justin Sun, as a sign of good faith, allow for the establishment of a foundation whos sole purpose would be to adminsiter the Ninja Mined Stake based on legally obligations that stipulate that any use of the assets are expressly to benefit the Steem community at large and to the further development of the existing Steem blockchain.
The witnesses and other capable people within the community should take steps to grow the ecosystem and launch initiatives that could lead Steemit Inc. towards profitability and alay Justin's concerns about losing money.
As far as I am aware, the Steem blockchain is a unique invention with a tremendous amount of potential. It would be a tragic story to see it all come apart because of warring camps. I would like to believe that the current situation is not intractable and that cooler heads will prevail. Would it not be desirable to see real genius and talent brought to bear the challenges ahead, both technical and intangible (i.e. goodwill and loyalty etc.)? In short, would we not all like to see the Steem ecosystem eclispe the mainstream social media platforms and provide its members with quality and lasting value?
In a blockchain like Steem, the contracts and therefore the law is codified in the version of the Steem software that witnesses run.
Community votes witnesses. Witnesses discuss possible changes to protocol and/or contract (like restriction on Steemit stake), devs code it, witnesses test it, witnesses deploy soft fork.
That's how a contract works in Steem.
So technically for Steemit Inc stake, the contract was in 22.1
If community does not agree, they change their witness votes. That's how it works.
I'm not talking about the mechanics of the #Steem Blockchain, I am talking about the transfer of ownership of the "Ninja Mined" #Steem Stake as an asset.
Stephen
I understand, but in principal 'Code is Law'. From that viewpoint there was no prior contract (it was not in any version approved by supermajority, although there have been many proposals and discussion to do that specifically).
And when it comes to ownership transfer: your keys, your crypto.