Take it easy! Coindesk was always a place what was not a friend of Java-based blockchain solutions. I remember when Coindesk has completely ignored Nxt, even on times when it has had a market capitalization of 50-80 million $. Coindesk authors are pro C(++).

I did not get answers to your questions:
- Where the methodology and criteria for removal stekholderov?
- When I was removed? In what month?

To these questions there is one:
- Where information about the fund that was created to restore the share stekholderov deleted by mistake. I was told that there was such a fund.

And yet, my health deteriorated. The lack of answers, and the expulsion of aggressive pressure has a strong moral pressure.
I still do not understand why I was denied my right to my share.

I have not broken anything. I made a payment, for I do not rely steak. After all activations me nespravedllivo removed. This is similar to splanirovannny deception.
I've seen people come in shock with the same question to you.
What have you done with very, very large number of people - this is bad.

You must close the moral aspect of the problem before stekholderami before you can think about the stable development coin. With such moral sins - the road to the development will be.

Why on Earth would a website be prejudiced against a, er, programming language?

WTF is DigixDAO???

Pushed us back to #9

It's an eGold DAO running on the Ethereum Network.

at some point (100K?) people will threaten to lawyer up to get their stakes,  like the Winklevii did with FB. At what marketcap is a NEM stake of ~2M coins worth going to court over? Could banned socks sell their 'claims' to a vulture fund? If you look at what UP actually said when NEM was launched there was some obvious back peddling on the rules & policy on the run. Could be very interesting to hear a lawyers opinion on the chances of fighting for a stake worth 1M USD

You might be right ... I don't know. The more valuable NEM becomes the greater the chance someone will at least consider trying this, especially as the coins still exist in community controlled accounts, so there's still a hypothetical chance of someone recovering them, and there's a possibility of finding UP who set everything in motion.

It's difficult now, and not worth bothering with until a NEM stake was worth many multiples more than it is today, but later it might be. I'm just speculating here, but the 'law' is not about right & wrong, or morality, it's another thing entirely ... what outcome can be achieved in a court of law.

I speculate the jurisdiction would likely be wherever UP was based (USA? .. didn't he claim to be an academic working on a PhD), and his early posts from Jan 2014 on NEM would be hugely relevant to whether later stakeholder culling broke any 'contracts' and were thus was 'illegal'. USA is very litigious society, so it's possible someone there would consider this if the money at stake was large, especially if UP's identity was known.


edit: how would this statement from UP be interpreted legally in the USA?