Ned Scott: Malice or Incompetence?

in #steemlast year (edited)

You can usually tell if someone is a leader when they're willing to take responsibility for failures, regardless of whether it was directly caused by them or their team.


It should be rather apparent at this point that @ned (Ned Scott, former CEO of Steemit, Inc) has demonstrated that he is absolutely NOT a leader in any respect of the word.

In fact, with the demonstrable, objectively verifiable history of failure by Steemit Inc to accomplish goals set forth in a specific timeframe, I would argue that Mr. Scott could have been acting maliciously from the beginning.

At a certain point, incompetence becomes less likely as malice becomes more probable.

A way to answer this question of Malice or Incompetence would be to answer some or all of the following questions:

  1. When did Mr. Scott decide to sell Steemit, Inc?
  2. Who did he discuss this with and when?
  3. Did Mr. Scott disclose how the community viewed the Steemit Inc held stake? If not, why did he retain this information?
  4. Who initiated contact between Mr. Sun of Tron and Mr. Scott? When did this happen?
  5. What documents did Mr. Sun request to perform his due diligence?
  6. Has Mr. Scott ever had contact with any of the major social media companies to discuss overt or covert censorship of content from Steem?
  7. Has Mr. Scott ever had any direct contact with any official or unofficial government agencies/agents?

The odds that Mr. Scott will answer any of these are near zero, but if anyone is within earshot of him over the next 13 weeks or so, I'm sure it could make for some entertaining banter.


Keep hustlin, #Steemians!

Sort:  

How badly he managed the steemit,inc companies has to be malice at this point, especially with how much he was paying himself (guessing). No one could be that incompetent. Just the fact he thought he could just sell steem forever to fund operations tells you how little he foresight he was using, which points to malice. He was never trying to make it sustainable, ever.

The problem that muddies the water is "what was Ned's actual intentions?"

Let us say that Ned wanted to start an online thingy that said it was about freedom of speech while setting it up to be taken over and become closed speech. If that was Ned's plan, that it was executed brilliantly.

He first set up a huge stake whereby he could take control at any time, and then started the "its a community thing".

He got a group of programmers that couldn't program their way out of a wet paper bag and kept any real talent from doing anything real within the system.

i believe the problem we have is not understanding the real direction the directors of steemit had for us.

And, i agree 100% that Ned is a poor leader.

My instincts for a while has been that he is/was a trained asset acting on behalf of a third party (state or non-state actor).

Should be pretty easy to recognize based on how this all shakes out. If he's protected, that will be a major indicator.

what if he was threatened by the Chinese government?
what if this is just all another scheme by the banking cartel, after all, decentralized monies is a no no for the fat centralized cats.