I hope people understand the very difficult situation centralized exchanges are in right now concerning Steem. I’ve said it’s no longer a blockchain becuase it’s centrally controlled and has no distributed consensus. That also means the tokens there are not secure.
/1 https://twitter.com/cz_binance/status/1264146790074314753">https://twitter.com/cz_binanc...

It may seem simple from the outside looking in to say, “Just give the tokens back to the original owners” but that would violate the chain rules and give central exchanges more influence over consensus than the chain itself. That’s really destructive precedent to set.
/2

If there is no competing fork, as CZ mentions here, then there isn’t really much choice in the matter. If an exchange doesn’t participate, the token is essentially not “real” on their exchange and all users lose out completely. Isn’t that worse?
/3

It highlights the need for independent ratings about the change in security of various projects over time. When a project dies, who issues the death certificate? What is the procedure for that community and the exchanges involved?
/4

Those paying attention have said Steem is no longer a functioning blockchain (which requires distributed consensus, controlled by an individual is missing the D in DLT). As such, what should exchanges do for a dying, centralized project with weeks of power down left?
/5