I think you mean Ned @builderofcastles, not Dan.
And I think Ned did lie to him, completely. But then, without a contract in place, what obligation did Ned have? I do not know the legalities on that.
Posted via Steemleo
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
On the legalities... there is no jurisdiction to try this in.
If there was, the case would be
"He sold me a bunch of funny money, that didn't do what i wanted it to do"
and the judge would laugh his ass off.
But, if there was a president about tokens being worth something AND there was a court that could try this, then
I'm pretty sure the UCC applies to the relevant transaction, which creates jurisdiction for seeking legal remedy of tortuous harm.
Yes the UCC applies, and is where my bullet points come from.
but, where does STEEM reside?
Where does Mr. Tron reside?
Where does Ned reside?
Where does steemit.com exist?
So, in all the answers, you end up with a court who doesn't have the authority to demand restitutions.
I really doubt this transaction is so complex the UCC cannot apply. My knowledge of lawyers sadly convinces me that hordes of them will eagerly leap to the fray, milking all of these questions for all they're worth, until they're settled, and actions proceed.
Probably, i get names wrong ALL of the time.
i will go fix that
I dont think he lied to Justin
They just act like it to swim around the ninja stake use case and community contract
Posted using Partiko Android
So, you feel that Ned and Justin were colluding together?
In the audio provided by @ura-soul in his last post, @elipowell stated she told the Tron team the witnesses would lock up the stake, presumably because it was understood to be committed to not effecting governance, and earmarked for development.
Regarding your opinion of negotiation tactics at meetings you did not attend and haven't a clue regarding their conduct, perhaps it isn't useful to pejoratively speculate regarding them, particularly in view of the lack of confidence potential in the integrity of the supposed target of those tactics.
Regardless of what the seller relates regarding an asset under negotiation, caveat emptor certainly applies, particularly to an accredited investor like Justin Sun. Any failure to understand the asset he purchased is Sun's responsibility, and his use of that asset thereafter certainly only reflects on him.