# The crux of all of this seems to be whether or not social contracts are legally binding...

Justin Sun acquires stake that was initially said to be used to develop steemit.com and steem.

It was the intention of the founders as well as the steemit,inc company to use the mined stake to do just that.

However, does that mean that they are legally bound to always do what they originally intended?

That seems to be the major crux of all of this.

How can we move forward if we can't really even figure out what we are trying to move forward exactly?

Most of the community seems to think that the stake is legally bound to do exactly what the original founders initially intended it for, but are they right?

It seem many in the space do not agree...

Including someone that used to work for steemit,inc:

https://i.postimg.cc/269k1N3B/Capture.png

(Source: https://twitter.com/Birdinc1/status/1236362651132928002)

And no I am not talking about Ned.

# Personally, I see both sides of this.

On the one hand, as a steem investor and user, I would love it if that steem was earmarked strictly for that use case.

Though, I would venture to guess I wouldn't even know if it wasn't.

Steemit,inc has been a private company since day one.

They have never opened their books to anyone.

None of us really knows exactly what that stake has been used for over the past 4 years. 

In fact, it is very possible that stake has already been used for all sorts of things that may fall outside the realm of "steemit.com and steem development" long before Justin even came along.

Which leads me to believe that it seems unlikely that the original intention of that steem is legally binding, no matter how badly I wish it was.

No matter how much I would like it to be legally binding, no amount of screaming from the roof top that it is will end up changing that.

# A path forward...

Now, if that is indeed the case that the original social contract is likely not legally binding, we need to go about working with Justin on how to best move forward from here instead of just getting hung up on whether he can even use his stake or not.

Perhaps there is a bath forward that involves him restricting his stake for a period of time, or something of that nature. 

At this point, I don't think he can agree to not vote for witnesses without fear of his stake being frozen again.

There will likely need to be some sort of trustless agreement on that as well.

It's tough to come up with concrete conclusions without being directly involved, but the sooner people decide whether that social contract is legally binding or not, the sooner we can actually get something done.

My personal guess is that it probably isn't legally binding, though I am not a lawyer.

Stay informed my friends.

-Doc