I view it as a mistake to exclude any accounts beyond those affected by the 22.2 soft fork + the obvious sock puppet witnesses that were implemented to run 22.5.

Imo, we fork to get a chain that is true to our convictions of the purpose of the STINC fund that people had invested in, and thus to settle the dispute that occurred with the 22.2 fork, not to get what's most convenient and in the best interest to us. I'm sure we can all think of 10 accounts in a minute that we don't want to share a chain with. But building a successful economy means having people with polarized opinions still finding value in the same currency, not migrating away from eachother.

Of course I see how those who may have been previously excluded, and are now instead looking to build a good relationship with JS, would be more likely to dump their Hive tokens. Thus I see why some may think it is in our best interest short term to not airdrop them any tokens. But still, that's an ugly road to go. For many different reasons:

• We want to defeat the age old criticism of Steem having been launched with an unfair advantage to a small group of people. Having an exclusion list created by a dev team means we'll still carry that impression. Whether we like or agree with it or not.
• While not airdropping any tokens to them may not technically be taking away anything they don't own, combining it with hoping that STEEM fails (the way many now seem to do) still end in the same practical result. At least then allow the two chains to each pursue their own ambition, rather than trying to tear the other down in the hope of leaving them empty-handed.
• It lessens the demand for the token when stakeholders know that they may be omitted from any future fork as opposed to looking to invest in a protocol that will yield opportunities long term.
• It significantly harms the likelihood of attracting any further investment and user growth from the demographics mostly affected by the exclusion. Ones that have been an eager early adopter of crypto and Steem in particular.

I don't think this should be our judgement to make. Sure, theoretically, we are free to run whatever new fork we want to. But practically, there will only be so many forks that have a token people know of or care about. If we choose to be rigid about the reason for the HF and previous SF being related to the intended use of the STINC stake and its significance, then answering future questions will be easy. But when one starts to arbitrarily add accounts based on subjective votes, then it will raise a lot of questions, concerns and distrust by future investors and projects. As well as the overall PR and public perception.

I think the best move is to let the market decide which platform holds value, and instead focus on building a more attractive product with a more ambitious goal than surpassing a #66 token by market cap.