Steem made a „soft fork“ to sanction the mysterious „community321“ account

Steem made a „soft fork“ to restrict transfers from the „community321“ account, after it sent nearly 24 million STEEMs to Bittrex in protest of a „hard fork“ that tried to freeze its funds.

Although Steem said the hard fork was intended to protect the Steem community from malicious actors, critics say it was intended to punish hard fork supporters by freezing their funds.

Steem sanctions the „community321“ account

An update published in Steemit on May 22 announced the sanction it executed on community321 , stating that „the community no longer has control over the account“.

On May 21, Steem completed a hard fork to freeze 23.6 million STEEMs associated with Steem stakeholders who supported the community-led Hive hard fork.

Hive decided to freeze the founders‘ rewards for about 20% of the total supply it inherited, Justin Sun (founder of Tron), along with the purchase of Steemit in February, to prevent Sun from exercising voting rights in the new chain. Critics described Steem’s latest hard forks as malicious efforts to punish Hive The News Spy – Immediate Edge – Bitcoin Trader – Bitcoin Revolution – Bitcoin Profit – Bitcoin Evolution – Bitcoin Era – Bitcoin Code – Bitcoin Circuit – Bitcoin Billionaire and supporters.

The mysterious owner of the 23.6 million STEEM

However, Steem’s last fork saw 23.6 million funds seized and mysteriously sent to a Bittrex wallet, only to be confiscated and then sent to the community’s crypto wallet.321 Data on Steem’s blockchain scanner reveals that community321 asked Bittrex to return the funds to their owners before the bifurcation:

These are funds stolen by Steem witnesses using HF23 on May 20, 2020: return them to their original owners before the fork :)

Richie Lai, co-founder of Bittrex, indicated that he is carefully reviewing the facts surrounding the transfer, and stated

„What happened during the hard fuck and the claim that the community321 account was hacked out of the Bittrex ecosystem are two separate issues. We can’t confuse these two issues.“

Due to the lack of identification data associated with the transfer, the funds were classified as unclaimed, where they will remain „until a user can prove ownership“.