I see the airdrop as an entitlement, and the basis of entitlements generally revolve around the concept of social equality. By excluding a handful because of how they chose to vote, we not only undermined the sanctity of the vote but also disenfranchised those individuals. If we shift and say the airdrop was not an entitlement, but rather a "gift," then it ends up looking like a payoff for those who voted "correctly."

Ultimately, because of the nature of reality, those with money will seek power. Is it right to take people's money away? Generally, the answer to this question is no. But what if they are going to use their money to destroy or monopolize a public resource? Right there, you're getting into the antitrust type of laws. Bill gates got wrecked with that, and that didn't even stop him from seeking ultimate power and control.

The problem of the wealthy putting their boots on the neck of the poor is age-old, but it doesn't justify a mass culling of people based on their political ideologies. I think if those people got mirrored here on HIVE and saw that their token had a higher value than Steem, it would behoove them to retain and celebrate their stake.

They could have what in their eyes is the best of both worlds, a blockchain run by Sun and a token of a higher value run by a community. The competition between the two chains will result in a winner and a loser. The Stakeholders will be inclined to side with, or at the very least, not be in opposition to the victor.

Excluding Sun and his socks was reasonable, all things considered. Taking an additional 300 out based on arbitrary metrics was overkill. Now, they're in this guilty until proven innocent limbo and are forced to beg the community for inclusion. I wouldn't do it. I'd rather eat my shoe.

You've also got to consider that some of the consensus-of-stake may have been intentionally voting in such a way as to stop both parties from doing any more stupid shit.

Greeting the largest stakeholder with an immediate asset freeze right after a multimillion-dollar purchase was the first mistake as far as I'm concerned. If we assume the largest stakeholder is a threat, where does it end? There will always be a largest stakeholder. I think the community should have put him on notice in a public post that if he attempts to fork with astroturf witnesses, the chain will split.