I think the shit most of us might be in is dependent on your continued actions.
You had a couple of valid concerns regarding plans and transparency. However, you have done nothing but charge forward like a bull in a china shop destroying whatever may be in your path with insinuations, allegations of criminal activity coupled with your own admission as I pointed out shortly before this post on price manipulations.
It has become evident these last several days that you have coveted being on the top of the stake hierarchy calling the shots yourself. You even made the feel good claim I called out shortly before this post was made on how their stepping aside was for we the people when in a stake based system the way you are advocating for we the people are under the heel of you the whales. You would have us replace a known solid structure with one that is unknown.
Unknown as the times I have asked you specifically what your plans for structure and stability were always met with the structure you sought to replace would just keep along running the structures they currently administer.
Your miscalculation in all of this was on a couple of fronts. First, your approach was to aggressive. You immediately went on the offensive and never let up. Second, you had no plan for how a transition would occur, no plan for if the outgoing power would step away entirely.
You didn't even think what would happen if they would pull a Hive on you if successful as was done to Justin Sun. I stated when this shit all began that if they were forced to fork away from this I would go with the fork. I suspect a good number of folks would have.
Even here, in your reply to me you reveal a certain disregard for Blurt as whole because of your disappointment on a personal level.
I think that much like double-u you took the silence and patience of the Foundation as a weakness. Understandable as I prefer a quicker resolution myself, and find that allowing things to draw out as with the VTS war and again here only serves to encourage the attacks and dis-ease that spreads as attackers grow emboldened.
It appears that the ball is now back in your court. I hope all eyes are watching closely to see if you will now seek to destroy the community you were just hours ago proclaiming to champion as needing the power. Gotta tell you though. Many of us have already been here through some pretty low fractions of a penny valuations.
Hi, yeah we have definitely been here in the world of prices before. It sucks doesn't it?
But it's real I wonder how much blurt I can get for what I have sitting in my wallet?
this will be interesting then I'm going to delegate it to practical thought
Yeah, when I came here it was because I was inspired by yourself, after Mr. Cornell edified this chain to me. The prices then were so low, fluctuating at 4-5 for a penny. The energy here was so awesome when I came, and despite not many natural English speaking folks I was welcomed with such kindness and respect I knew I had found my place.
The energy here has changed so much in your absence.
I'm humbled as I was with the first delegation that you gave to me. I've been blessed by your generosity as have those I have built a community with.
Thank you.
I have a problem with some of your interpretations. For example these accusations of price manipulation, don't I have the right to sell what I bought when others are selling printed coins? Do you really think like megadrive that I want to destroy blockchain? Think I have more to lose than you and megadrive has more to lose than me. Was what I did so far (the curation) not even voting on own posts (except for the last ones) as megadrive describes sociopathic behavior? I understand that the price drop is depressing, but don't let that hide the facts
I noted that the sudden price drop coincided with the initial post by double-u. When he mentioned to another that they were assuming he had sold his Blurt, I suspected his involvement.
But as time has passed, and I saw one day where there was over *3000.00 in velocity as the price tanked even harder you began saying things about your observations in selling dropping the price. You also began mentioning how you could push the price back up, mentioning a figure of 25k to do so.
It's evident there is manipulation taking place on the value. You have been charging through here during this entire time on a constant attack mode, openly discussing your observations of personally dropping the price and how you could make it go back up. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
You do, you can sell whenever you want. Where things might get legally dicey however is if it appears to be done for manipulation purposes.
I'm not going to label you as a sociopath, but I do see a lot of self serving manipulation that has been a non stop press since the double-u post from you. And as with selling, you have that right. But we do have eyes.
You are a shit Sherlock, give it in, you fucked up not him, you and your bumboys in the foundation of paranoia
Ah, And tell me why I sit for three days almost non-stop on this blog? If I wanted to sell everything I wouldn't tell anyone anything to get as much money as possible
Doesn't matter if you tell or not in regards to the price you will get. The markets are already telling as we have seen the valuation flow to its current place.
Genuine question though is freezing someone’s account legal? I would imagine that’s against the law to withhold someone’s funds? Even if given the time to power down that’s like someone buying shares then being forced to cash them out when the markets really low. What are the legalities here?
I would ask you to reread this post. No ones funds have been withheld, nor been threatened to be withheld. He was told to move his property from the wallet within 40 days. I was reading more from those chat logs and it appears that even if one was denied access to the wallet front end that the Foundation runs, if one understands the coding thing one can still access their funds that way. Now for most of us that would be quite a daunting affair, but I'm guessing not for MK.
Let me ask you your thoughts on a scenario.
Let's suppose you got married. To the best guy in the world. You brought a little more to the table than him, but that didn't matter. It was love.
He talks you into getting a house with him. You have better credit, so he has you finance things. For a good future and all he says.
Soon after your finances are tied together (here in the U.S. it is treated somewhat like a business contract) he begins calling you out of name. Telling everyone you are whoring around on him. He gets mad at the drop of a hat and breaks shit around the house as he berates you.
You decide you've had enough of his shit and want him to go. After all, in retrospect you realize that you brought most of the possibilities to the table. Due to your credit and better choices in life. Yes, he did put some sweat equity in the fixer upper house, like putting that new roof on. Rewiring that basement.
But yeah, you have had enough. And the longer you are together, you realize he will get more out of you, out of this partnership that is abusive to you and drains from your work effort to his benefit.
What are the legalities of you forcing a cash out and separating yourself? Do you have an ethical position to seek such a separation, or are you stuck with him because the time isn't perfect for him to go?
I do not know everything about this argument, nor could I hope to but I can say since I have been here @ctime @mariuszkarowski and @mmmmkkk spelt wrong but same guy anyways have been amazing curators. I have seen them literally curating a variety of great posts by a variety of bloggers every day. I would say they have made this place much better, without them I am seeing great posts by really involved bloggers are getting like 50 c and how many of those ppl will stay around now? It's not that people don't like blurt but people do need to generate income and I doubt they will be spending as much time as they have if it doesn't even pay for a coffee every day. I haven't really seen anyone else with big votes doing what they have, I've even seen many just giving upvotes to selfies with a blurt logo on a lot of the time. I think the place will be a lot less inviting to a lot of ppl without those accounts. Maybe they were not perfect but I believe there are better ways to go to keep people happy and form an agreement in the middle.
I have explained that in my post (I have no intention of defending myself from nonsenses and conspiracy theories by megadrive and hivewatchers)
https://blurt.blog/decentralization-day/@mariuszkarowski/d-day-countdown-and-now-an-ending
The official accounts of the so-called foundation upvoted very often accounts like blurtbot which is additionally paid by the foundation for running social media accounts.
I believe that the so-called foundation does not have the rights to use "printed funds" for upvoting because it impoverishes the investors who invested real money in BLURT and bloggers like you who are not getting upvotes from them
I don't know about the inner core issues, people who can look into things a bit more on the blockchain will need to do that, but from simply watching and observing you guys have given people who I really believe work hard on this platform and post good quality content upvotes to help them stay motivated. There are a lot of people with big voting power who I see just voting the same old small group of people constantly irrespective of what they post. I really believe without these three accounts many people would have left by now. I even suggested accounts not getting decent rewards for their quality content and these accounts stepped up to the plate.
The issue not about upvotes, if the foundation leave, I've been told that nothing will work, even the blockchain will have an issue, and we may see bugs and not working frontend. They are who pay the developers to make everything work. And those who are upvoting, I don't know if they have developers who can code the blockchain and take care of it or not. Running all this and make it work is not an easy task. I understand if the other side with big stake have developers, and they will be able to run everything, but I guess they have not. That's the biggest issue, that's why as a blogger you should wish they both stay. And I wished none of this drama happened, and they contacted each other and solved that in private, but since it's already public, I don't know what to say. I just want to explain the situation from my point of view. And as always I could be mistaken, still trying to look at the big picture.
I have never said I want the foundation to go but I personally I do call for transparency and answers to the questions people have asked and a lot more transparency and involvement from the community about how money is spent. If someone invested in shares all this stuff is public, or at least supposed to be and blockchain is supposed to make it so everything is FAR more transparent, thats the whole point of it.
Yes, there must be more transparency. I saw several witnesses in that shared meeting blaming much of this on lack of transparency.
I think EVERYONE would be ok with seeing a developer being paid however to make the platform better and continue to work, I don't mind a foundation but it HAS to be more transparent and fair than just giving huge sums of money to friends for projects that most people here probably don't think are useful at all, like paying for images etc when you can get them for a big upvote or an open competition or even.a stock site for a few $, if they really are paying huge sums for friends just provide one of their existing images thats pretty shocking to me. I think EVERYONE would actually agree to paying developers even more than they are doing and bringing on new ones. I want to trust these people but I am waning.
I also know that developing is really expensive. And also I heard that graphene blockchain developers are not that many in the world. It's kind of hard to code or something. About transparency, I guess even in steem and hive, we can't know for sure how much those developers are paid. I don't know the reason behind that, but maybe they all prefer people to not know about that. I don't know. After 5 years on all these blockchain I understand now many things and still learning.
personally I think they need to make some big changes if they want peoples support. I am sure there are two sides to every story and I am not taking sides because I am not informed enough but I do want to see a summary of what has been given funds from the foundation. So far all I have seen is money being thrown at people in a small group and no actual people working really hard being able to get anything to help projects that are really helping blurt. I don't see much transparency and blockchain is supposed to be all about transparency. I bet no one knew till today that someone had gotten nearly 1000$ to make shoes for example and god knows what else has been funded.
This.
https://blurt.blog/blurt/@practicalthought/rdsynl
For my vantage point here were the options being presented to the community. Neither were great, but one had a high likelihood of costing us the entire community.
https://blurt.blog/blurt/@practicalthought/rdsynl
well thats pretty much the same, because your then forcing someone to take money out at what might be a loss. I know people who got compensation from a stock company because of an error so they couldn't pull money out when the market then went down. I am not sure with crypto if it is legal or not, which is why I am asking but it would absolutely put off anyone thinking to invest. If I had gotten a good lump sump to play with I would have considered buying blurt with it actually as I felt it was a great community and a lot of potential, I would now never dream of it, if wallets can just be frozen. I can't see these kind of threats attracting potential investors. But hey thats just my opinion.
marriage is a bad scenario example really, a better one would be something like binance just freezing someones account and emailing them they have 3 days to get their money out or thats it it's gone. When it comes to marriage I personally believe unless you have children with someone both have had an equal chance to make money and should just walk away with their own shit unless they actually bought stuff together or one actually offers the other some money and then you can of course take it with a glad heart. Personally I wouldn't want to take someones else's money they had earned unless they actually wanted me to have it, would rather just walk away as I went into the connection, but thats me. If someone bought a house with someone without designing a prenup or sorting this stuff out first then they will pay the consequences I guess.I have already looked into trust funds and the legalities of marriage/asset sharing etc in advance of marrying so I know what the law is. I would want to make sure things were legally in my favour then if I choose to share something with my partner it comes from my own good nature, not because I would be forced to under any circumstances. In the uk you do not actually even need to be married, you only need to have moved all your stuff in with a partner and you can be required to keep them in their current lifestyle. There are things you can do though to ensure that your assets are protected and I believe anything you had going into the relationship is yours anyways. If people are going to split the mortgage but one puts more in than the other you have to know thats shaky ground and really should do something about that in advance and get some paper work drawn up. There is little point in thinking about it after you break up, then it's for the legal system to decide if you can't agree.