Everyone: How exactly was the takeover / the hard fork carried out?

On a technical level, it wasn’t without flaw. The lack of unique chain_id + use of existing RPC nodes meant that some apps left Steem without realizing it.

I don’t know to what extent this was intentional. But there were justifiable reasons to do this having to do with ease of transition and cost.

And since witnesses / node operators can run whatever software they want, the only reason to raise an eyebrow is the speed that they switched.

If they took more time to allow apps to be informed, it might not have had any adoption impact. But delays would have also opened a vector of attack against the hivefork.

Why was this possible to occur in the first place?

This was not the first time a community split was attempted. But it was the first time a significant number of the community and devs followed.

To some extent, the previous softfork made this possible. Without the turmoil caused by the witnesses who froze 20% of the supply, the exchanges would have never entered the story.

That response was considered but deemed unlikely, by the witnesses who froze the assets.

It created an environment where a viable hivefork would eventually become accepted.

Could this happen again in the future?

Without the turmoil of the softfork, I don’t see how. To some, the “dev fund” was the linchpin.

How do you think will the situation evolve?

I think both chains have viability. Steem might be able to attract people who are not interested in the ideology. Hive has already gotten the attention of people who were frustrated with Steem. I think this dynamic is not a one-time thing. I think Hive can continue to attract people from Steem, on an ongoing basis, even if Steem’s actual account numbers grow faster (e.g. if Tron manages to market “free money”).

Meaning, when one gets frustrated with a chain, they can try the other. That can work in both directions.