As to the Inc stake, I agree that obligations are assumed by the company irrespective of a change in board or shareholder composition.

So the issue is whether the stake was bound by promises to be 1. non voting in perpetuity, and 2. to be used for the sole purpose of Steem blockchain development for perpetuity, or until depletion; and if so was it right for witnesses to break ordinary DPOS rules to freeze them.

I have no doubt some general representations were made at least in the early years regarding certain restrictions to the use of that stake. I also have no doubt that some community members may not have built value and/or invested but for those representation. I'd even go so far as to say there was at least some level of deliberate misleading conduct on the part of Ned, of whom I'm not a fan.

However, overall I feel those representations were too vague, inconsistent and dynamic to form a binding agreement over obligations of such magnitude. I also don't believe the reliances made on them were sufficient, and there exists a strong argument that the community members and ex Inc employees acquiesced when Inc's attitude shifted to clearly state they were the sole proprietors of that stake. Either way, this case is far too murky for me to feel comfortable enough to support witnesses undermining DPOS consensus rules and directly intervening to freeze that stake. In crypto, general consensus rules (those that don't require manual intervention) are almost sacrosanct and operations should not be suspended for contentious cases.

Put another way: In terms of property rights, do I feel on the weight of the evidence there is such an overwhelming case for anyone else having a clear and direct superior claim over the actual private key owner of the stake that I'm willing to suspend the operation of ordinary DPOS consensus rules to directly have witnesses freeze/seize those assets without the private key owner's knowledge and/or consent? The answer here for me is a clear no, and my witness votes will reflect that. I'm specifically talking about this particular case, rather than a general rule.

Do I believe there's at least a weak but realistic case? Yes. But not one that's anywhere near worth directly intervening and undermining ordinary DPOS operations. I'm not a 'code is law' maximalist. But In a trustless system, you need to trust the system more. The witnesses flinched way too early on this one.

It may feel satisfying or even cathartic in certain ways and I can understand that sentiment, but this was not the right move and I fear it has done our chain considerable damage in reputation loss.