I would imagine that’s against the law to withhold someone’s funds?
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.
Yes this rly doesn’t sit well with me that the only project to get funded is one of MD s friends and there is no public listing of this and was opidia paid tons of money for using a photo? I think we need a lot better transparency. I personally don’t mind having a foundation at all as long as it serves its community, I don’t want one that’s self interested, freezes accounts willy nilly, only funds it’s friends proposals and doesn’t even ask what the community thinks, listens to what the community wants or allow outside witnesses into the discord chat. Things are really off here and some things I’ve heard have really disappointed me over the last few days. It just sounds like a draconian rule by MD, that’s really not the point of blockchain, he is supposed to be the one who founded the platform for the people, yet no one gets any say in anything.
Yes, there has been a compounding of many wrongs here. Jacob appears to be back now so some of this might be salvageable. I just stopped my power down I started 8 days ago to see if he can right this ship.
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.
the developers and core team is one thing but friends being given money to make shoes and possibly just let their images be used for huge sums of money when they don't have the money to pay for needed developers or marketing is really off to me and I would love to see a list of where all the money has been given and to what projects so it\s not just hearsay but we can see for ourselves, even share holders get this right and blockchain is supposed to be more transparent, thats the whole point of it. I personally would like to see the community be able to make decisions on what money is spent where and see people in the community working hard given a helping hand to grow their projects outside of the money holders friends.
Do we have such transparency in steem or any other blockchain you know ?
The issues from my understanding is that not many programmers can program is C language which is what is used on the chain. So the ones who can are used to being paid more than normal programmers and sadly to my understanding the few programmers we have are not getting anywhere close to market rates as it is.
That's why @ultravioletmag many programmers left before. They preferred to work in other spaces for better money. But those who are staying are working here for the idea mostly, not for big money. Because trust me with their skills they can make much more of money ! But they are staying and that's a big respect.
I was told blurt was going to move over to a more popular language at some point
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.