I don’t really agree with your assessment, but despite being on Steem since 2016, I’ve only recently become an active user so I concede I may be missing something.

However, I would like to address a few of your points.

To begin, I haven’t researched to personally view the comments the witness have been pointing to regarding the ninja-mined Steem so I’m speaking now from the assumption that the belief is Ned earmarked those funds for community development and made numerous statements, as a representative of Steemit, Inc, in writing, in response to community concerns surrounding those funds.

This is where it begins to get murky for me, just some guy who has been trying to keep up. If the blockchain serves the same function in a legal capacity as a notary public, the statements Ned made regarding the purpose of those funds are legally binding. I live in the United States and I’m no lawyer but unless something has changed here, even verbal agreements are contracts. If Ned made promises in regard to those funds on the blockchain they are binding if we’re using U.S. law because they are public statements that anyone can verify.

The fact that this is happening on a global scale, with actors residing in countries outside the U.S. makes it difficult for me to know where to look for precedent, and I believe that’s going to be an issue going forward. So claims of legality or illegality are speculative at this point because we don’t know which laws are going to be invoked, if any. So referring to it as “can only be described as an incredibly stupid move” unjustly discredits what many see as a legitimate move by a governing body to protect the community it represents. Regardless of personal opinions it seems disingenuous to start the discussion from an accusatory position.

Regarding your position on Steem never being decentralized, I don’t think there’s any debate there. One of the points of contention here is the those funds were supposed to be used, in part, to further the decentralization of the chain.

Regarding Justin Sun and his ownership of the stake... that’s the question we need answered. You’re correct it’s completely fair and legsl to sell your own property, but at this point the debate centers on the question was it his to sell?

Another point I’d like to discuss is Justin’s recent history. He praises decentralization but has proven when push comes to shove he’ll assert himself into a position of authority against consensus in order to further his agenda. He did it just a couple of weeks ago on the Tron chain (if my info is correct). Why wouldn’t he do it here? Considering the extended time he set the town hall meeting for, and how quickly he orchestrated the take over once he saw he wasn’t the central authority here on Steem, it begs to question if that wasn’t his intention from the beginning.

I think this is a complicated situation where it’s entirely possible a misunderstanding caused the chaos we’re seeing, but it’s also possible our witnesses saved our chain by acting swiftly to block what was always intended to be a takeover (hostile or otherwise) and cannibalization of the Steem blockchain. These are my thoughts on the matter and whether you agree or not I’m glad we can have this discourse. Thanks for providing a place to start.