Firstly the your timeline is all wrong, ctime and his camp were the first to start the fake stake narrative and making socially engineered moves to discredit the foundation as not being a foundation and making calls for the stake to be taken off our hands, threatening legal action, asking for a registered company to send legal correspondence etc.

Ctime and his supporters werent even on out radar before that. He was just pissed off he misunderstood that regent was something separate to the stake accounts and was waiting in anticipation for them to dissapear magically so he could have the majority vote on the chain.

My response was just that of freezing only, not taking away, not stealing, just giving notice to withdrawal and leave the community. It wouldnt even be possible for me to act alone, devs would have to be willing to code such an HF and witnesses would have to run it, this statement was made in private under severe stress caused by his maneouvers combined with those of Double-u and not something in my nature to due. sadly instead of trying to mediate and talk me down, fervi decided to go running to publish fud and drama which never would eventuate, causing community wide division. As you know I got out in front of this and fully disclosed my statement and recanted.

I think the notion of needing a legal opinion for a chain that sometimes only has $200 of trade volume on coingecko is a bit ridiculous. Also as I said which jurisdiction does it fall under would decide which law to apply? Ethereum was mentioned to now be potentially under SEC jurisdiction because a majority of controlling stake nodes were now concentrated under US ownership. Blurt has a diverse witness set so it is sovereign to itself and not under the jurisdiction of any particular place afaik.

Regarding founder stake, almost every chain has founder or team allocation, might be interesting if you can find some chains in the top 100 that don’t, I imagine most do, Cardano, Tron, Atom, Ethereum, Bitcoin, Osmosis, Juno are ones off the top of my head that do have founder allocation and almost every project on ethereum has team allocation. Serey has an over the top team allocation of like 80 percent of supply as far as I’m told, haven’t verified.

If Marius wants a legal opinion he is welcome to pay for one but as I said it is a waste of money as legal opinions differ and even more depending on client mandate. A lawyer that we hire would be bias to find reasons Blurt is compliant while a lawyer Marius hires would look for reasons it isnt.

There is for sure a common language, we all want to make money, i’ve said to ctime let us build in peace and work towards making him rich, his reply was only when the fake stake is gone will investors buy, but which investors, I dont know of any ready to buy, I also dont know of anyone outside ctimes circle who has a problem with the team having stake, it is standard practice as mentioned.

Right now the ctime camp is deterring all other users from investing due to uncertainties and fud and detering developers putting full effort due to always having to fight social battles and why bother spending time and costs building if ctime is setting up witnesses to block hardforks and progress as he did with the dao.

Real investors would perform due diligence before investing by meeting the team on video call. Asking questions and offering to bring their networks to help grow blurt, I can’t in good faith consider this group investors, but rather amateur speculators with lust for control.