I appreciate you honestly expressing your opinion, but so much of it is wrong that I wonder where to begin.

Let's start with the moral argument, then move on to the tightly related economic ones:

Steemit made a clear and unambiguous promise that the stake they mined would be used for onboarding and development of the blockchain, not for personal enrichment. Now, you probably are going to say, then how would they make any money from doing the development. Well, there's actually two ways in this case: 1) they are going to charge some overhead (e.g. salaries) for the work they do and 2) all the major devs and the larger shareholders were also "awarded" personal accounts from the ninja-mine. THIS was the stake that was supposed to represent their own interest in developing the blockchain and devoting the rest of the stake to development work.

Why did Steemit make this promise? Because they knew all the other stakeholders would have bailed out of the currency, driving the value of that huge stake to pretty much nothing. This almost happened anyways, because Ned and Dan were selling their personal stakes very rapidly at the beginning (such a sign of confidence in their coin) and the price was dropping fast until I convinced them to stop that practice for a while.

But from my point of view, even if they made the promise from the goodness of their hearts, I expect Steemit to live up to it's promise on this issue. If simple fundamental promises like this aren't going to be kept, then myself and like-minded people will stay on a chain where promises to the community matter. Other people who don't care about promises, and expect their interests are served better by baseless promotion and no integrity can leave for a fork where promise don't matter. This is OK, each group gets to operate under the rules they like best.

Ok, that pretty much summarizes the moral argument for me, let's move on to the economic one. Here I'm talking about what will be best for the price of the coin.

By voting stake, it's clear that the large investors in Steem support the Soft Fork. I've spoken to several of the largest Steem investors, who've told me they will leave the chain if it becomes a chain dominated by the stake of someone whose primary interest is Tron and not Steem. One thing you seem to be ignoring is that it is investors that support the price of a cryptocurrency and if many of the large investors leave, the price of the coin will tank.

So when you suggest that Tron can just do a clean fork and just ignore the community, I think you're ignoring key issues.

First, even if we assume Tron can get that fork listed on exchanges without any problem, something I'm not convinced of except for the special case of Poloniex, there's still the strong likelihood that the price of the coins on that fork will tank when investors leave. This will translate to a large initial trading volume, followed by a huge drop in trading volume once these investors leave (several operate as market makers as well as investors). At this point, the listing for the fork could come under pressure, because exchanges generally only want to list a coin if there's enough volume to cover the cost. And trading volume comes from investors, not from Steemit (unless it just decides to do wash trading and treat the resulting fees as an expense). You could argue that Tron will buy up a large amount of Steem to support the price, but this seems unlikely on a fork where they already have the entire Steemit ninja-mine stake.

The next question is where all the non-investors go (e.g. people who use the blockchain but don't actively buy Steem for money). What they will do is hard to predict, but if they don't go to the Tron fork, it's begins to be difficult to see what the purchase of Steemit was even for, except to get developers experienced in the Steem code base.

The Steemit stake has been a huge weight holding back the value of Steem for ages. If it had operated as promised and been devoted to development, it would have done great things for the coin.

But instead, it actually worked against the price of the coin, because it was hard for other investors to be motivated to invest in base-level Steem technology when a single stakeholder was deriving much of the benefit, but not really pulling their own weight.

It has effectively stifled third party development of the common infrastructure like API servers and the blockchain code itself. Instead, you'll see that most Steem-related development has been on dapps and other tokens (i.e. SteemEngine tokens) which allowed those developers away to profit from their work. The SPS has improved this situation somewhat, but the funds available are still small relative to the Steemit stake.

I'm finding I don't really have the time right now to see if I've rebutted all your points, but maybe someone else can take a look and address them.

I guess my final point is this: I found your attitude surprisingly defeatist for someone I took to be a cryptocurrency enthusiast. If you think one rich guy can come along and just get his way in the cryptocurrency world, it feels like you should be searching for a new area to devote your efforts if you still think there are ideals worth fighting for.