This is a great question.
For myself it was a mix of principles as well as economic potential(s).
The leaders here exhibit a sense of community I've not seen elsewhere. Considering us their community, we have already seen one one airdrop (Digg) on the first project Jacob has worked on since Blurt. There is also talk that one for Gamestate will one day also be made to us.
Unlike Larimer where one has to keep paying to be in his community, we are permanently in their community because we are valued as more than the money we invested to get in.
I have found the character of the founders to be a large draw, as it isn't easily found in investment opportunities I've been presented with.
I also love this unique system where someone of meager means such as myself can allocate a proportional claim on the inflation to others here. And at times those others are in such economically depressed areas that despite the low valuation it still makes a significant impact on their immediate life. Ever since Steem I've been humbled by this aspect of this economic system that has been tweaked by the founders here.
I don't have time to go to your post on the pool where you've been debating with Baah. I do since I'm here wish to interject that one of the tweaks made by Rycharde is he has made our reward pool elastic, which largely does away with the often exaggerated claim of reward pool rape. It increases and decreases with the total amount of powered up stake.
As to your not seeing a crises, I would point out again that they (exchanges) are not the rightful owners of that airdropped Blurt. They are (in my eyes) performing a criminal act by retaining retention of that Blurt.
As we discussed previously, they have demonstrated no desire to release it to the actual owners, nor displayed any signs they would be willing to do something unheard of which is share their records of internal customers so those folks could be made whole (which would be easiest by them actually releasing it to them anyway).
Just because the likelihood of an imminent threat is not on your radar doesn't mean there isn't that threat.
I've often said most accidents aren't accidents. They wouldn't have occurred if one was mindful of potential outcomes and took the necessary steps that would have prevented it.
they have literally done nothing with the airdrop
doing nothing is not a "criminal act"
Withholding it from the rightful owners could be viewed (I view it as such) as a criminal act. If the bank inadvertently put money into my bank account I'm legally obligated to return it. If they have no intent on giving it to the rightful owners, they legally need to return it.
Yes this 👆
can't they just say "we don't support that network" ?
you can't "obligate" an exchange to support your fork
Yeah in the case of crypto you can’t liken it to a bank, but the airdropped funds would have been earned by virtue of user funds so ethically they should make them available to users or else they should burn them. If they are unresponsive the conmunity can burn them via HF
IF they move the funds THEN they must give them back to the original owners
IF they never move the funds THEN they are not obligated to do anything
Yeah but once they move the funds it’s too late there is nothing we can do, the funds can also be used for voting on consensus which could be a risk, their keys could get compromised if they close down due to bear market conditions or regulation and suddenly you have a blackhat with keys to large sums of blurt to mess with consensus.
the courts are responsible for enforcing the law
you are not responsible for enforcing the law
the scenario you describe "blackhat with keys" could happen at any moment
regardless of what happens with these unclaimed exchange tokens
that's why it is important to maintain neutrality and focus on stability
it is dangerously authoritarian to use the network itself to enforce moral opinion
targeting specific accounts because they "should" do something or "shouldn't" do something is the wet dream of central banks everywhere
Bitcoin is the neutral network, dpos is 100% governance driven, on dpos governance is law. They are not the same.
what is your personally preferred definition of "governance"
imagine if we cut off people's phone service if they said things we dislike ?
imagine if we cut off people's water service if they did things we dislike ?
crypto must be a neutral network
didn't the same thing happen with bitcoin-cash ?
I'm not sure, I don't really follow other crypto much as I'm not a crypto enthusiast. Ultimately I believe it is a tool whose purpose ifs to further enslave us, and is being offered in the way it is now to get folks used to the system and in some cases become so attached to it that a religious like fervor is induced. None of which answered your question, lol.
I just know that the airdrop was not intended for the owners to be the exchanges, and is further an issue when one exchange in itself holds a controlling amount of stake and could at any time decide to install their own witnesses and do whatever they wish here with this stake that doesn't belong to them.
what is your "worst case scenario" here ?
That they have a controlling amount of stake. As such if they decide to pull a Justin Sun they could.
And to reiterate, it isn't their stake as it wasn't intended to stay within their custody.
Yes this x 100 it is hostaged user funds
isn't that mitigated somewhat by the removal of the 30X witness votes ?
also, don't the current active whales control more than 75 million tokens collectively (or at least half of that) ?
Yes, that does mitigate that a lot.
I believe the foundation is holding 50-60 million total, not sure on how many tens of millions the FUD whale is in possession of. Enough he was able to block the DAO for awhile anyway.
End of the day, the tokens don't belong to the exchanges no matter how this is examined.
picking specific accounts for specific actions is against the entire concept of crypto
if you want to implement a "fix"
it must apply equally to everyone
I agree. Let ALL accounts holding other users Blurt hostage have the tokens burnt. Allow not one of these criminals to profit from their actions. Treat them all with the same disdain.
do whatever you want, but you can't target specific accounts
Bernie Madoff was ordered to pay 200 billion in restitution. He was targeted. You can't make him pay that money unless all investment advisors and brokers also are stripped of their money. To only target him because he was a criminal is specific targeting which we can't have.
A small percentage of folks use guns in the commission of crimes. We can't hold those folks responsible for their actions. That would be targeting. ALL gun owners should be the price and loose their ability to possess firearms or we would be targeting those who were the problem which would be wrong.
Some people invade other peoples land and are targeted with violence to repel them. To single those invader people out is targeting and instead all people should be killed.
Do you see the flaw in what you propose from my application of it above?
You can target specific characteristics, and that is the desirable method. There has been a criminal action taken by the exchanges in question, and they and they alone should pay the price, which is nothing as they weren't meant to become enriched for being thieves to begin with.
Discernment is based upon a specific targeting, that is crucial to proper function and correctness.
"More than 40,000,000 BLURT are powering the @BlurtBooster account"
@rycharde PT just reminded me the rewards pool is elastic, most of the exchange funds are liquid yeah? So if burned the powered up ration will improve and might counter the rewards pool reduction which is APR based on total supply. Thoughts?
ok, i see what you're saying
since the elastic "reward-pool" is proportional to the ratio of "powered-up" and "not-powered-up" tokens - burning the "not-powered-up" tokens would move this ratio in the direction of increasing the percentage of "powered-up" tokens
and this would increase the total payout award for upvotes per cycle
which would increase AVAILABLE SUPPLY in ACTIVE ACCOUNTS
basically, it would increase INFLATION
Sort of, first inflation would decrease because total supply decreases post burn, since the 9% APR is of the total supply.
But since there will be less liquid to powered up blurt ratio the reward pool will operate at a higher output and help bring levels to the same daily rate as before the burn, we can also tweak APR upwards if needed to get back to current daily rate of payout.
so, it's a wash ?
If by wash you mean maintaining the rewards pool status quo then yeah it’s a wash, we will try our best to tweak things to keep current or better levels for social and witness rewards.
stability is key