Until yesterday, I had never heard of this 'deadline'! I am very sad about the whole situation, especially in my role as witness.
I think Blurt is doing a great job in developing at the moment. My biggest fear though, is that maybe @ctime will be leaving us!
He has done so much for the community with his awesome voting and has also generously supported my witness. This will all be gone, if nothing changes on the 07.07. ...
Here his comment on the issue: https://blurt.blog/blurt/@ctime/rdds07
To be frank: I am absolutely speechless and very very sad...
While the impact of C-time leaving would be harmful, that is only one of many worries that we are facing here. I'm stunned this wasn't dealt with long ago, by calling for a witness vote for an extension and making plans and implementing paths forward in the case that the demand to honor that initial contract were demanded.
I say all of this as one who would prefer the Foundation consider their custodial role. Sadly I didn't write that initial contract and the time to pay up on it fast approaches with no preparations.
I understand @ctime, but it would be the wrong time to kick out the Foundation altogether.. We need a step-by-step plan. That would be my vote, if somebody asked me.. I had a look at these witness votes by @socialgraph... I don't have one...
Yes, we need a plan.
I just left this comment on a discussion I'm having for one of our other largest stakeholders on this who is advocating for the separation from the Foundation.
https://blurt.blog/polish/@practicalthought/rdiw9c
What I do know is that this was put into writing almost two years ago. I've seen discussion on possible lawsuits for fraud if it's not honored. None of this is pie in the sky. I believe that there may still be an option for a witness vote to give an extension. However, there are accusations being made that the witness votes from them have never decayed as promised. So if that portion is true, then in order to make this a witness vote that would avoid all appearance of foul play (the vote is rigged) then the witnesses positions would need adjusting before such a vote is made.
Unfortunately this matter has been allowed to close in on the target date with no planning for it from any side. In an ideal world the Foundation would have either taken steps long ago to seek at minimum an extension, or they would have been seeking a discussion with the community on how exactly this transfer would occur that would be palatable to the majority because it would have looked for some way this could actually be done. I don't even see how this can be done if you look at the comment I made i just linked here for you.
I honestly see we're fucked and gonna take some major hits however this falls out. I don't think we can just say,
While I agree that its obvious to myself this is a gotcha because of how badly things got between himself and megadrive, we can't ignore that initial opening promise from the Foundation. Many of our largest stakeholders are demanding their promised places as the top of this chain in decentralized utopia (for them). It was promised. Doesn't matter that most of us were unaware of this until a scant few days ago.
I don't see how this would end well in court if folks who put in lots of money (courts could give a shit about those of us who put in just a little money even if it was a lot to us) say they were lied to and never would have invested had the promise not been made before they invested.
The time is running out to try to reach some kind of compromise, and I say all of this as one who want's the Foundation to continue on as the stewards of this project. I can't even imagine how anything would run without someone running something. The infrastructure needs to be in someones name or the companies who provide these services wont provide them.
Ok, I read your comment... And all the others... And to be honest... I didn't like, what I was reading there...
You have my word on the following as a witness (and I will stand to my word! ): In the long run (step-by-step) , the Foundation should have the goal to solemnly restrict its tasks to the technical support and development of the Blurt platform, of course receiving funds for these tasks! Everything else should be dissolved in the long run!
Maybe my opinion might not really be liked by some of the top witnesses here, but it is my honest opinion, coming from the heart!
Edit: @clixmoney asks in another thread, if there are public statements to these topics... I would of course be interested in reading them too....
Much of my loss of confidence is because of the lack of any real statements of substance other than the growing attacks on conduct being made against the Foundation that are largely going unanswered.
Yes, I understand! The Foundation has to make a statement.
I dont see a promise in the DAO post from 2 years ago. I see an explanation of how blockchains can be created, and idea for a company to create them. And an explanation of how blurt has been programmed off of what had been created at steemit.
"The Burt blockchain inherited the Steem Proposal system, also known as the DAO, which gets funded at a rate of circa 433 Blurt per hour, traditionally developers, marketers and project owners could issue proposals and get them funded. The issue there is that the funding is not guaranteed and midway through development the funding could be cut off by community voting in favour of a return proposal or simply deciding to no longer support the development in favour of something else."
I read this as saying that things will continue the same in terms of the funding of the foundation unless it is voted to cease the funding. This was a potential weakness of the chain, so a regent account had been created to hold it for a certain time. This was not a promise that one day the whales can use their vote to steer the witness votes how they want. If it is time for a witness vote on if the foundation should continue funding then so be it, but that would be a stupid decision for any witness to make. And if it goes the wrong way the foundation is in their right to take witnesses that agree with them and for, or the ones that want something different can fork.
Nothing is broken here as far as I can see.
That was applicable 2 years ago when there was only a few holders of stake. There are now many holders of stake and a vote would be more balanced along the players that be. If it went to voting now the foundation would still sit in the same place probably without the regent vote. If for one a vote is even called and the witnesses decide to keep things as it is nothing changes.
If they don't I could then see cause for concern as then the blockchain can be controlled by a cobal as we have seen else where. That is when we might see a fork or the foundation decide to take their talent to a new project.
So far I have not see anyone asking for a witness vote of this kind other then someone who is bitter and wants to burn blurt. Even if he does still have most of his holding it may not be enough still to make a difference.
I've been asking loosely for some kind of vote for days now, even some real commentary from witnesses and the Foundation. I'm not sure why this is being allowed to continue on without nipping it in the bud one way or another. The whales advocating for the stepping away aren't stopping their calls, they are escalating it with more accusations and nods of seeking legal remedy.
This needs dealt with, it's not going away. And the longer it's allowed to fester is bad.
Do you think if the vote of socialgraph will be removed, the ranking of current witnesses will change a lot ?
Because there is nothing to nip in the bud. On july 4th they can see how their votes have stacked up with everyone elses and see where the witness list lies. Nothing else requires any sort of action. If the whales are not happy with that they go. But it was not because they were somehow duped or fraud-ed. Nothing was hidden it was said from the beginning. The code is there and tells the story it is their on negligence if they did not read it and for some reason stupidly believed just because they have a big stake they get their way or can push things how they want it.
They have their freedom of speech and freedom of vote. I don't think blurt as it stands can even be sued. But some whales are individuals and could be sued for libel, and false accusation of fraud if it hurts the community and business.
This is the FUD of some cry babies and really not that serious and I wish you could take your amazing energy in another direction with this one.
In short they dont need to nip anything in the bud because the cry babies are allowed to cry on blurt even if all it is, is spilt milk and misunderstandings about some of the safeguards built into blurt to keep cry babies from spoiling everything.
I think you should see the whole thing as a net positive for the platform not a negative.