The whole Blurt team and the witnesses are tired of threats from CTime. He has on multiple occasions threatened to powerdown. Him being a major investor shouldn't do that because it scares people.
About the freezing of accounts please wait for an official statement soon.
it's up to c time if he wants to threaten to power down or not though, personally even though I didn't like seeing it and I lost respect for double u also when he powered down and just dumped the value it is their choice at the end of the day. They are investors on the platform who have put their own money or time here and if they want to threaten to sell if they don't like things it's entirely up to them. Ctime didn't make me fear holding blurt in any way like the same amount as the platform deciding to freeze several peoples accounts or at least say they were going to, only a few weeks after saying they were going to put someone else on the coal list just because he offended someone that also wrote really Nasty comments to people on the platform but just deletes them. That really made me question having all my blurt in a wallet I can't access for 4 weeks because it could literally tank the price to 0 as most people are here because they value free speech and freedom, if that is taken away and accounts get frozen all those people who came here for a safe haven from platforms who downvote will just be like this is no different and withdraw their funds. I am not the kind of person that believes In no laws at all but that on these type of platforms code can be law, then it is not one persons personal opinion or a group of 3 or so deciding who can get away with things and who can't. Going around freezing individuals accounts and wallets just because someone doesn't like something or because someone thinks someone might do something is really actually even worse than hive slightly. If people have a genuine chance to vote the witnesses they like in and those witnesses decide that they for example don't like swear words it wouldn't bother me as much if they just coded a block on swear words being used. That is a use case of blockchain where a code can be an answer to something someone doesn't like without personal opinion jumping in. Even that is a bit of a slippery slope as people could code in all kinds of words but I guess thats where there has to be some kind of consensus between the voted in witnesses.
From any chats I have seen posted it seems that MD just says his opinion and if a witness disagrees they are kicked out or told to leave, this is not democratic. Still I haven't been told how many people voted on the shoe proposal, before you spoke about it like you were not involved as you said things like 'I believe that was the only project funded', hence you didn't know, which you would if you were involved more fully. Out of the box is number 25 witness and he was never asked. So who is asked about these proposals? it is this lack of transparency and lack of democracy rather than the actual shoe thing, obviously in isolation it's not a huge deal but it is what it represents. People have mostly come to blurt, with much lower payouts because they want to support a platform that is what blurt originally promised, free speech and fairness. They don't want to jump out of a frying pan and into the fire lol.