Token Entitlement
There seems to be a vast array of opinions about what took place. In this article, I want to express some observations and how things are impacted.
To start, I will say that I was not involved in the fork of Steem. From what I understand, there was a group of about 100 developers, large stake holders, and project team members who were a part of the fork. I found out like everyone else, when @blocktrades made the post. Although I heard some rumblings that a fork(s) were being worked on, it was nothing specific.
Forking A Blockchain
This seems to cause some confusion. In this instance, there were roughly 100 people who got together to pull this off. That was not required. In fact, Blocktrades could have forked it themselves.
We often state how anyone can fork a blockchain and that is true. Keep that in mind throughout this article.
When someone (or a group) forks a blockchain, it creates a new chain. That seems obvious yet it appears to be overlooked by many.
Those who are responsible for the fork are free to do whatever they desire. They can adopt whatever governance they want; they are free to give tokens out as they see fit. Since it is a new entity, it is a blank slate.
Tokens
A natural part of forking is to distribute tokens. This is a major decision that people who are forking chains have to make.
Who is going to be involved in the airdrop?
Once again, the ones who put this together could decide anything they wanted. In this instance, the group of 100 or so could have chosen to give tokens to themselves and let everyone else start with a zero balance.
The decision was made to airdrop most holders of STEEM on a 1:1 basis. There were some accounts that were excluded as per the decision of those who were putting together the blockchain.
We know there were some accounts that were omitted due to an error in the script and that is being addressed.
Here is where we see token entitlement coming in.
There are some feel that what the "forkers" did was wrong. They believe certain accounts should not be singled out. Everyone should receive tokens is the thought.
It even got to the point that some have called it stealing from those account holders. How is it stealing when this is something totally new?
STEEM is not an access token. Holding it does not entitle one to airdrops from anyone who forks the chain. If the developers behind the fork decide to drop, that is their decision.
Obviously, it is often in projects best interest to try and attract as many people to the new development as possible. Here again, while the 100 or so people could have only dropped to themselves, it probably would not have been prudent.
Tokens are often marketing pieces, used to offer incentive to people to partake in what they are doing. It only makes sense to open it up to more people than just the original circle.
Made For The Steem Community But Not By The Community
I also saw people questioning things such as the funding of the Proposal System and how it should not be that way. Some even went so far as to question who made that decision and why wasn't the community involved.
What community?
This blockchain was set up by a group who forked the blockchain. It was their blockchain, not the Steem community's. Until the blockchain went live, the "community" was just the 100 people putting it together. The fact that they invited the rest of us to partake is what expanded it.
To frame it another way, we know those who use to work for Steemit Inc are working on another chain. Now, we have no idea what it is based upon. However, just because they were part of Steem, and I held STEEM tokens, does that mean I am entitled to tokens from them? Should they check with the Steem (or Hive) community before they make any decisions.
Of course not. It is their project and they are free to include whomever they want. Certainly, I would think it a smart move to try to include those who are known to be loyal and dedicated, so the Hive community might be a good place to start. But that is entirely up to them.
Fracturing The Community
Some also think that the way the "forkers" handled this divides the community.
I have news for everyone, it was fractured before. That is why there was a fork. If we were all united and singing Kumbaya, there would be no need for a fork.
Forks are the ultimate arbiter in blockchain disagreements. Anyone who does not align with what is going on is free to take the proverbial bucket and build another sandbox. That is what a number of people who were on Steem did. They opted to invite some they felt would like that sandbox better. At they same time, they decided not to invite those who previously were destroying their sand castles they had built.
It is unfortunate but this is how things unfolded. Now, there is a Steem community as well as one on Hive. Some opt to use both just like many choose to use both Ethereum and Bitcoin.
Now it is up to each community to grow and expand.
Freedom
What talk about freedom a lot and people often give it a great deal of lip service. While they probably believe what they are saying is true, we see a different streak show up when things happen in a way they disagree with.
A group of people got together and exercised their freedom to fork a blockchain. They did not like what was taking place thus they started something new. This is the advantage of open source software. At the same time, each individual was exercising freedom in the actions that took place before the fork. We all made decisions based upon how we felt about what was taking place.
Right now, we are all here on a voluntary basis. Nobody is forced to remain on Steem nor to use Hive. Anyone reading these words is free to go use Voice, Facebook, YouTube, or smoke signals. None of us are forced.
The same goes true for those who started Hive. They did so with the intention of expanding to include many of the members of the Steem community. However, it was their baby to start, to establish it as they saw fit.
Certainly, I am grateful they expanded the scope to include other accounts into the process. At the same time, I would love to be a part of whatever @vanderberg etal are cooking up. Nevertheless, that is up to them and we will see what happens there.
If you found this article informative, please give an upvote and rehive.
Great reminder.
I fall into the trap of criticizing too sometimes, then I remember to treat the opportunity like a gift that can be returned. I find myself not wanting to return the gift.
Excited to see what the old steemit crew makes up - seems like that might be a fun place too.
Look only sock puppets are crying foul
So are my thoughts. The people who thought hive was their entitlement are laughable, they want a centralized community but a decentralized communities airdrop, if you're so sure of your community why give so much attention? Why should I care if Tron is giving airdrops or not as a non tron user?
They only care about it because it's trading at a value.
If HIVE was like many other unknown forks out there, they wouldn't give a damn.
Do you have time? Let’s talk on the subject in a livestream. I will invite you if you desire, fone and internet is sufficient to join with. It will make for a very interesting subject. We will look at the sokoto and sokoto. The subject at hand can be very grand
Yeah sure...when are you thinking
I am usually ill bro so i just push. Once you are ready, i will push. Just gimme time when you are ready and i will setup and send you link. This is some basis. Kindly read, it will help our discussion. https://hive.blog/hive-190212/@surpassinggoogle/where-do-we-take-steem-and-blockchain-tech-from-here-a-legitimate-illiterate-s-case-study
Hi bro, I found you on discord. When I have stream I will invite you. Like in a short while. I will just check on you on discord with a link and if you are free you can join
Okay bro....i havent hollad at you due to bad network
I find it much easier to think of the split in terms of stake instead of accounts. By definition, the steem blockchain was attacked (single entity controlling consensus). As has been written and spoken for years, the reaction to such an attack is to (re)move the stake used in the attack. Stake can be spread over many accounts for a single user. Thinking of which 'accounts' to airdrop or not is a little closer than thinking of people/users, but ultimately these things only make sense if we think of them in terms of stake
My issue was never with the ethics. Couldn't agree more, those who supported centralisation don't deserve to be airdropped tokens. My issue is strategic. I believe Hive would've been better off if they'd have been dropped.
It would've painted Justin as clearly the villain, and it would've given him no grounds to softfork out the STEEM stake of those top witnesses.
Now we're seeing Steemhunt freeze Roelandp's Hunt tokens, and half the Korean community is threatening to leave Splinterlands if it moves to Hive.
I don't know what will be next, but I'm guessing most of it could've been avoided by winning hearts and minds with a more inclusive airdrop.
I am not following this @mattclarke.
Could you elaborate a bit more. I am confused.
@mattclarke is saying that there should have been no excluded accounts, other than those of Steemit Inc. By excluding users like @steemchiller, all that was accomplished was further resentment, bickering and the loss of higher ground in the whole issue.
As a matter of strategy, I completely agree.
Hive would've been the welcoming chain; the let-bygones-be-bygones chain.
Showing kindness when you don't need to, is very endearing.
The contrast against Steem would've been black and white, instead of grey and white.
The sociable, "people-person" witnesses like Luke Stokes and Aggroed understand.
It's the coders who just see ones and zeroes; and don't understand enough about human nature, who pushed through the hundreds of exclusions.
Now they're repeating the 'We're holding it, but we'll let you beg for it,' mistake that they made with Justin in the first place.
This could be mitigated, for example, by the app sponsoring the request to allow its users to be airdropped their Hive. It would save them the their dignity by alleviating the requirement to "beg". Having the clout of a major dapp would also go a long way in having the community back it.
Most of the SteamMonster users belonging to the top group are kr users. Users who are mostly excluded from the air drop in Hive are also users of kr. When the SteamMonster moves to the hive, it is normal for the kr user to oppose the move before the hive.
I wonder if some Steem members will now freeze SteemMonster, then demand they get their way, like children, or extortionists.
i can not visit @vanderberg 's profile. Why is this? -> Ah typo you have 1 r too much. -> @vandeberg
Yes typo.
Sorry about that.
Well said. I completely agree.
Ultimately, that, right there.
Which points us to one of the core tenets of decentralization. When we are part of decentralized structures we can't sit around and wait for some "they" to make things better. Ironically, in this case there actually was a "they," in the form of Justin Sun and Tron.
So ultimately we end up with a look at those who prefer an external 'they" on one side of the table, and those who realize that WE are the "they" and thus are accountable for forward motion.
Neither approach is inherently wrong, they are merely different. Which side we chose is more or less contingent on our personal interest and philosophical leanings.
I happen to be a content creator, above other things like being an investor or a crypto aficionado or a freedom seeker. So I'm inclined to go where my content might find an audience, and a sense of community. Others have different priorities.
Very true. And those who have different priorities are free to go wherever they desire.
That is the nice part of all this...nobody is forced into anything.
Hey, @taskmaster4450.
I think you've articulated these points about the hardfork very well. The cold hard facts, if people want to view them is such, is that the hardfork exists because of a smaller group of people than those who are now currently using HIVE. The same is true, as you duly note, with STEEM and every other blockchain project out there.
And it is true that they are free to make the rules, which may or may not include letting the community in at some point to help decentralize governance.
Since a good portion of the move to HIVE was predicated on what was considered to be centralization of authority, it would seem to behoove that group to at some point invite the rest of us in, and it certainly sounds like those are their current intentions.
So, we're in a situation now where governance appears to be a little less centralized than it was before, but not quite where many of us will want it to be. And whether or not it ever gets there will probably depend on a smaller group than the 100 you quote, since my guess is, there's a smaller core group that is putting up most of the time, the knowhow and the resources needed to keep the HIVE chain afloat.
As far as the airdrop goes, as you said, that's also their decision to make. I personally wonder at the optics of it, and just how hard a line one can take, or just how unequivocally someone can call it voting for centralization when any of a number of factors come into play.
Trying to determine what constitutes malicious intent is going to be a slippery slope, so it will be interesting to see how this all shakes out, especially if we end up going in a group route, as opposed to case by case, or at least widening the categories of potential offenses.
In my mind, those who thought a stalemate was in the best interest of the STEEM chain, to give all parties the opportunity to voice their views and try to come together does not constitute an outright vote for centralization. Just because some were already done with STEEM in their minds (and probably were the moment Justin Sun showed up on the scene), doesn't mean everyone else was.
So, I for one, can understand why some wanted a stalemate (even if demands were later added to the equation that were either detrimental to the health of the chain or already doable and didn't require a stalemate in governance). Though it didn't really accomplish much else, it did at least slow down things long enough for many of the rest of us to see that things just weren't going to get better.
There is no doubt that bringing others in decentralizes more than just the original 100. This is something that we have to keep moving towards although it is never perfect.
As for the efforts of those who put this together, yes it is my view they are putting forth most of the know how and resources to keep the chain going. That is why it is up to all of us involved to do our part.
Commenting and posting is a good way to do things since it does help the numbers a great deal.
You've hit the nail on the head with this one! I can't believe how many people whine and talk about their rights and property, when the hard fork is a creation of something new, and it's completely under control of those who managed the process and actually forked the chain.
But entitlement is nothing new, although I sometimes expect a bit better from people involved in crypto.
I guess we could say it comes from being reared in an economy based on scarcity.
But yes, we would think people have a different view.
Likewise me, I like to think if you are involve in crypto, there is abit of selflessness in you, there the zeal to combat the censorship world, greed should be non existence, freedom should be the goal but humans have continue to exhibit that selfishness and greed even in the crypto world.
I'm almost certain this is not Satoshi envisioned.
Thank You @taskmaster4450 this may be one of the best posts I've read on this subject.
100% agree with you.
Gave you the biggest upvote I can, re-buzzed, and following.
It would actually have been pretty counterproductive to do otherwise. What would be the point? The issue was creating a new community among those who shared certain views, so they provided extra incentives to only those they thought might possibly share those views. Only if they knew from previous actions the parties DID NOT support the ideas behind the genesis of the new chain did they have no reason to give them incentives.
Furthermore, a previous STEEM fork called Whaleshares gave no incentives to those holding STEEM. They based their airdrop on holders of BTS who submitted their BTS address in time. There is no right/wrong way to decide to give stuff away!
If there is, I've got a bone to pick with US tax law for incentivizing marriage with all kinds of tax breaks when I choose to be single. Or how about business tax deductions when some people choose not to start businesses? Child credits for some when others choose not to have children? I mean, if we're going to say everyone has to get the same rewards regardless of whether they engage in the actions we want to incentivize, why stop at airdrops? There are more important things.
great points! I always wonder how you make these insightful posts every day. Keepi it going :))
Its only yours if you have earned it! We are not entitled to anything from this new Hive chain like you said its up to the coders to make it how they want. Obviously they want it to succeed tho and will do all they can to be fair.
Jesus Christ, man. How did you get so much truth in one post? Is that even allowed? Somebody call Justin Sun to come sensor this! I think there are members here who won't be able to take it.
perfect explanation..
@taskmaster4450 are you a teacher? Your insight in explaining blockchain contexts with simple words for everyone's understanding is amazing and I think I covert this. Well detailed and factual read.
Even if Hive Chain had to start with a zero balance, I would have still loved to be here. I contributed nothing but virtually got air-droped with tokens worth over $300. I am grateful for the magnanimity of the devs.
Staying on hive is a choice, staying on steem is a choice, forking another new chain is also a choice. What makes the difference is your "unique feature" that will make the people stay.
I am @Uyobong