Even if Ned clearly stated online something like "the plan is to use that stake to develop the chain and ... this is a contract ... I repeat this a contract" this still does not constitute a contract in the eye of the law because it's not defined (there are so many dimensions/details that need to be clarified by law before that document become something that will enforce repercussions in case of no conformity).

Document? You can write something online then print it and call it document (because it sounds more serious).

Ned can easily fake a post online stating that there is no contract and date it to when the blockchain was created (can be done pretty easily by just tempering with an indexed page). He can easily state that something he said (that can disprove that he made a contract) was removed from a blog or a website that was shut down since then.

To be honest, I find it amazing that people are still thinking that talking or writing something online constitutes a legally binding contract.

Please read my reply here:

https://steemit.com/steem/@dr-frankenstein/q6ox1y

I really want to see anyone of them standing in front of a judge saying that STINC should null their stake just because they said online to us they will do it. This is not how legally binding contracts are constructed.

I am not in support of Sun or Witnesses. I just hate demagogue and people who use populism and emotions instead of logic and critical thinking. Most people here know nothing about the law, yet they think they are right just because they feel so. Probably why we didn't solve the whole situation, having nerds trying to do the work of lawyers, businessmen, and conflict resolution specialists.

Thank you!