I think the key limiting step can be seen as regulatory, because the regulatory environment and people in general, did not contemplate the idea of developing a proper framework for the crypto world. Hence, they will trait it (law) in most cases as a conventional business case.
Even if we assume that there was a contract. The lack of information makes it difficult to define the nature of that contract.

• For how much time the contract was supposed to run. 1,10,30 years? Or until the fund reaches 0?
• To what extent.
• How much Steemit Inc gained.
• Is the fund that was spent on development taking from a safe dedicated solely for development.
• Is the fund for development growing over time or decreasing.
• What are the expenses and taxes that were paid until today?
• How to differentiate between the property of inc investors and the fund for development.
• How can we know for sure the percentages of each thing if we assume that development and expenses were financed only by STINC. Percentages can shift; thus, things will get even dirtier.
• Wich statement should be considered as the source of the contract? and are the statements that came after should be seen as an update to the first statement?
• If the first statement is legally binding, why the second one (the update is not)?

... There are a lot of things to consider, a lot of things that we don't have just because a real contract can sometimes contain thousands of pages just to clarify everything. Saying “I will support” for example isn't a legally binding (can be contested at so many levels) contract and the reasons are obvious.

There is also a question of "with whom exactly the contract was made?"

• The community?
• The witnesses at the time?
• The Blockchain?
• What if the witnesses changed, what if the community changed and new people got in?
• What if changes were made to the Blockchain that STINC doesn’t approve of? Do they still need to provide support?
• Is the contract tied to the first version of the Blockchain?
  …

Contracts can also be altered:

• Can we consider the witnesses accepting the status quo before as a form of approval and consent?
• What if STINC fills for bankruptcy?
• Who has the right to agree or refuse the proposed alterations?
• Were there anything (rules, sectioning) in the contract in case someone buys the company?
  ...

These are just a few ideas, things are even more complex since the company is based in the US. If the case goes to the court, I can tell that people are going to lose against Sun, on top of losing a lot of money + the potential reparations for Steemit Inc for the damages.

People should not take this lightly.