RE: The calm before the storm
What part of this gives you the idea of it being a dictatorship or tyranny?
The point is, to effect the change, and take a stand against the current sitution, we need to move as one. We don't want a "sister" token, we want to move, or swap over to the new chain with better protections against a one-man supermajority.
"Move as one"
"Protections against a one-man supermajority"
The choice here is to unite, design and decide on new set of governance standards together, and move on. Or, we all sit back, do nothing, and hope for the best possible worst case scenario.
At the very least it may just force the hand of the swing voting proxy.token community to pick a side and end the deadlock.
While the price is in the toilet, it me be an opportune time to make a break.
Like I said.. wish you luck with your concept.
I will be far more inclined to follow the concepts reflected in @ats-david's post that entails free choice of being on either chain and letting preference and the markets decide which chain ends up with my attention. Or both if I feel like it without having to give up stake on one to satisfy the dictates of the other. That is freedom not tyranny.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't see any freedom in belonging to two dictatorships. I like @ats-david's idea to move, but the key is "move," and not "split away." People generally only move to something better than where they are, and we do need to move. especially the dApps, web front-ends etc. Not have one foot in each pond.
I stongly believe a clean cut is needed to a better (with greater on-chain freedom and governance) solution, not just another one the same. It would be way too easy to not move. There is freedom to choose to stay with the TRONSTEEM, or move to a better STEEM, with greater on-chain freedoms.
Out of principle, I wouldn't want to keep stake in something I don't agree with the way it was captured from the community, and I wouldn't want anyone who still supports the new owner here to also be on the new "FREESTEEM." If I decide to move, I leave one to go to another. But fomo seems to trump ethics in many places.
@ats-david and you both have the same basic thinking in regards to moving.
The difference is you are proposing a process that imposes your thinking and will on participants. That removes their freedom of choice on how they move. You are proposing a process that places the participant in the position of enforced either / or decision making when most will find there is a lot more gray than black and white.
@ats-david's approach will have greater success. People will be more inclined to move when they can take their time crossing the bridge rather than having to burn it out of necessity instead of choosing to. IF where they are going meets the promised change, they will burn the bridge on their own when they ready. That's freedom of choice.
If you can't see the difference, it makes me very glad that your thinking is not what is driving the ship.
Luckily for us, we have a diverse community with many leadership and direction ideas to mould into something (hopefully) in the best interests of the platform.
There are pros and cons to both approaches, I'll agree with that, and perceived freedoms or lack thereof in the process, but the freedom to commit 100%, or not remains in both cases. The one just provides an extra escape option if things aren't going all that well. When the only outcome is success or failure; that's when the true stayers come to the fore, and success, though hard-earned, becomes more likely.
I can see the difference between our approaches, and sure! There is a time and place for a "Hey! We're gonna try this, come and have a go" mentality.
In my opinion, this isn't one of those times. The measured, soft approach in this fiasco has gotten us nowhere fast so far. We need a strong and decisive leadership group to step up, and bring us a vision to buy into 100%, and plunge headfirst into with no looking back. We need a united front from the big players to show up amd lead a move away, with the belief that failure is nit an option.
If spineless fairweather mediocrity and "go with the flow", with a safety just in case we fail approach is your cup of tea, you have the freedom to choose that too.
I'm glad we have some leaders with a bit of fight in them to balance things out.
Fortune favours the brave, my friend!
I've spent enough years in leadership roles to know that you have the concept of who is strong and decisive backwards.
the ats-david approach is the strong and decisive. He'll be leading from the front and will be stepping out with the belief in his cause. He'll also have the wisdom to know his strongest followers will be those who come along on their own terms even if they have doubts. When the bad times come, and they will, they will be more willing look to his leadership through those times.
your approach is more bravado which means your leadership has to come from the rear while you drive people where you want to go. When the bad times come, and they will, those you've driven before they truly wanted to embrace the mission will be leaving in droves and cursing you the whole time.
Leadership isn't just about taking the lead, it's about the willingness of those who follow to see it through on the strength of the offered vision. Offered being the operative word.
I see your point. I really do. Perhaps there is a sense of "bravado" in my aggressive approach. Bravado implies lack of accountability, which is not my angle here at all, but rather more accountability in that a united leadership team with strong community support is crucial to success. I would, however, expect that leadership group to lead by example, and really disconnect from the old chain, perhaps not burn their stake, but rather use it to help fund the changeover at the very least.
Perhaps my "burn the house down" is a bit excessive or bold, and probably comes out of anger at what has happened. I won't deny that.
I do see your reasoning about driving the masses into disillusionment, which is why I believe in a balanced approach too, and
perhaps@ats-david's approach is (way) more balanced. I'll accept that.Perhaps the way forward will be good enough to succeed with organic growth which brings the masses away from the old into the new, without the extreme requirements, and pehaps burning the tokens won't be nessecary afterall.
I would classify anyone who has a go at moving the majority of the community onto something better as brave.... and possibly a little crazy, but I'm 100% behind the team which brings something other than sitting around talking in circles for weeks.
Thanks for engaging with me in debate. I appreaciate your taking the time to argue your point. You may have even cooled me down a bit to see the merits of a not-so-extreme move.
I concede.
I'm glad we concluded this with mutual understanding. If the current situation could be thus resolved eh. :)