I've been reading some comments made lately regarding this very subject, and as much as I can understand where they are coming from, I can't help but to worry about it a lot. To be completely fair, it's true that Steemit Inc holds a lot of stake and thus it can be intimidating for big investors and that part I'm not arguing. What does concern me is the precedent being set here and the mechanics we would use to determine what accounts to fork off.
Remembering The DAO Hack
This happened millennia ago by crypto standards, but it's something that most people should know about. It not only became the very reason as to why Ethereum Classic is even around, but also put into question the very thing we claim that blockchain must have, immutability.
When the DAO exploit was used, it allowed for one single attacker to retrieve 150 million dollars worth of ether from the smart contracts, and this of course split the community in half. The investors faced a difficult choice, since losing their funds was mainly due to the code on the smart contract and nothing else. You see, it was either revert the transactions and fork out the "theft" of Ether in the name of immutability, or accept that the attacker had used the "law" of the contract to gain all that money in what he claimed was legitimate.
If I'm to be honest, they were not good choices and regardless of where I may stand on this issue at this very moment, I've found myself agreeing with both sides of the isles at different times. However to make a long story short, Ethereum Classic is the original chain, the one that "got hacked", and Ethereum is the forked one, the one that got reversed, rolled back.
I won't sit here and say that this is the reason why Ethereum has suffered in valuation, because it's more of a combination of things, however if there is one critique that we can't dismiss, is that the idea of an immutable blockchain where code is law is not entirely true, not anymore at least, not when it comes to Ethereum.
Steem and the echo chamber
I think it's not outrageous to say that for the longest of times we've been living on an echo chamber. For some reason to a considerable population of Steemians, the world is comprised of one token, STEEM and it's either the drug they can't quit or the best invention since sliced bread.
Depending on where you stand, you are either with the optimists who believe we are one development away from taking over the internet, or with the misfits who are here to see how the house is going to burn down. I personally try to remain positive while at the same time not become someone who ignores the obvious shortcomings.
I have to ask myself, and maybe we all should, what would happen if Steemit Inc was to exit he building? What would happen if Ned sold the company, or a new CEO would stand in his place? Would this destroy everything? Would this signal the end or the beginning of needed change?
I'm not one to believe in destiny per say, but maybe thing do happen for a reason and since I can't control the actions of others, just slightly influence them, I tend to think that regardless of what awaits for us a few miles down the road, the lessons learnt and the concepts edified on this experiment of ours are enough tooling for a future I've decided to be part of.
That being said, I hope, and that's the appropriate word here, that the promises being put forth by Steemit Inc are delivered on time. I hope the community and it's leaders take it upon themselves to help with he decentralization and thus eliminate the points of failure with our actions, not just words.
If and I say If for some reason Steemit Inc was to not deliver, it's my hope that we take action into our own hands, with all that making such move would entail. The truth is that Blocktrades has had enough resources to make these foundational improvements a reality, and for reasons that are beyond my understanding at this very moment, has not been hired to implement them, but if the worse was to happen, that is a card we should consider playing.
If we fork
Which in my view is not plan b, or c, but more like z, we would probably find ourselves dealing with political feuds of gargantuan dimensions. I mean, it would not be as simple as eliminating the ninja mined stake, because I'm sure there would be plenty of none Steemit Inc accounts that would not support such a thing, and being some of the them among the most influential people, the wagons would probably stop there.
On top of that, we have to be realistic about the costs of continuing development for what would be the new blockchain, the costs of getting this new token listed on exchanges, etc. The point being that not just the infrastructure would have to be established out of pocket, but the valuation and markets would begin from absolute 0, eliminating almost entirely the current market dynamics.
The point I'm trying to make, to be as clear as possible about this, is that there are examples of failed forks out there, even STEEM has one and as far as I know Golos has been suffering to stay above water for a long time now. We don't need a new golos.
Worker Proposals
I don't want to make this post painfully long, but there is one thing I would like to add to the table, something that in my view could potentially decentralize development for this blockchain. Maybe you are familiar with bitshares already, and maybe you know that it was Dan Larimer's first crypto project, but have you ever asked yourself how development happens there? Who is the Steemit Inc there?
The truth is that it's often discussed how we can and/or should distribute more tokens to content creators, and to an extend I agree with that. The skewed distribution is part of the reason why there seems to be no end to the problem in sight, but more importantly, at least for the moment being, is how sustainable focusing on content creators alone can be.
If we don't have a solid foundation, then it must mean that should be our focus. If we can't attract more and more talented devs to work on this blockchain, to loan us their brains so to speak, we are not likely to keep up with the competition.
There's plenty talk around the idea that witnesses make too much and what not, but as much as I can appreciate where people are coming from, truthfully when compared to other crypto projects we can see that this is not the case quite clearly. I know that I might win some enemies for voicing this opinion, but it's quite verifiable for anyone who would like to challenge it.
Let's not be Yes people
We can't afford to, not anymore. I'm not talking about being insulting, starting new flag wars or becoming bitter. I'm talking about presenting a unified voice, letting leadership know what we want, what we expect, what we don't accept.
Due to the monetary incentives of this platform, we've seen over and over people abandon their positions as to not affect their support, their income. And as much as I can understand it, that behavior has led us where we are today.
I have to say that if there is one big mistake that Ned has committed, at least in my personal opinion, is that he surrounded himself with yes-men and this has led to years of missed focus. I mean, I don't pretend to know exactly what has transpired, but within the hierarchy of the company, there must have been someone who thought that reducing the costs of operation for full rpc nodes and witness servers was priority #1 , specially because I'm well aware of the intellectual capital that resides in this blockchain. But if those who actually had leadership's ear available to them, chose to not say anything, or mention but not insist, then they should also own our current position as well.
