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.

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.

perfect explanation..

>If we were all united and singing Kumbaya, there would be no need for a fork.

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.

Well said. I completely agree. 

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

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.

> 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 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.

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.

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. 

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.

>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

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?

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. 

Look only sock puppets are crying foul

i can not visit @vanderberg 's profile. Why is this? -> Ah typo you have 1 r too much. -> @vandeberg

great points! I always wonder how you make these insightful posts every day. Keepi it going :))

@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

---
<center>Posted via [Steemleo](https://steemleo.com/@uyobong/q8m48p)</center>