I believe that the correct role for witnesses on blurt used to advocate for the growth of blurt. I also believe that I have seen numerous statements recently made by witnesses that do not seem to align with those goals. So first of all, what is blurt? Well blurt is a social platform. Blurt has always referred to this mysterious thing the foundation, which is not in any legal sense a foundation, and we have always been very very clear about that.
Historically speaking, blurt has spent very very very very very very little money on software engineering or quite frankly much of anything. You can think of it as a much more efficient version of steam, where we would never ever spend significant resources on things like exchange listings. Instead, we have worked overtime to cultivate a community of people who enjoy using blurt.
Those people are more than welcome you sell any blurt that the chain says they own, for any reason, at any time.
Those people are all welcome to pay the chain store their words and ideas in a permanent fashion. We introduced payments, to stop penises from attacking the site. I mean literal penises. There were thousands of them all over blurt, and I have never believed that block space is free anyhow.
The witnesses should be operating blurt. That is to say, the witness is should run witness notes, they may wish to consider running I can see interested, and they may wish consider running front end interfaces. In addition to that, if the witnesses were sufficiently engaged to build products on top of flirt, I believe that would contribute to a flourishing as well. Recently, I have done an assessment of the platform. Any issues that blurt has, are not a result of corruption or anything, and are in fact very very common inininin