>"...those stakes were no longer ninja-minded."

This is true.  The Steem community has been, as @starkerz noted recently, quite naive, lulled into trust by @ned's lack of pecuniary intent and avarice.  This is a trustless platform, or should be.  The founder's stake has continuously been claimed as solely intended for use by development initiatives, and this verbal (written) allegation has sufficed to preclude concerns of it being deployed to centralize governance of Steem.

However, that threat has always existed, mostly due to the 30x multiplication of the influence of substantial hodlings of stake over the witnesses.  It is this mechanism that made of the founder's stake a centralizing threat.  As long as the substantial stakeholders could trust @ned not to use that stake, their influence on governance was dramatically increased, and they clearly benefited from this.

This temporary solution but points to the need a decentralized trustless platform has to prevent concentration of influence on governance through code that enables some stake to wield more influence than other stake.  Eliminating the 30x multiplication of the influence of substantial stake on governance eliminates any threat of @justinsunsteemit, or heirs, beneficiaries, or assigns to exercise instant governance of Steem.  It also makes all Steem equally influential, from large or small stakeholders, in witness elections.

1 Steem = 1 witness vote is the fair and equitable way to solve the problem temporarily mitigated by this soft fork, as well as the undue influence that has heretofore inured to large stakeholders over the majority of the community.

> Once acquisition happened those stakes were no longer ninja-minded.

Seems like essentially if you do something bad, its ok as long as you sell it off.

If I steal a car and sell it to someone, they get to keep that car regardless of what the true owner says?

> Once acquisition happened those stakes were no longer ninja-minded

Sorry I can't agree on this point, particularly in so far as the transaction was described as acquisition of the company. I fail to see how the identity of the sharesholders of a company, or a change in the list of shareholders, changes anything about a particular block of stake that was ninja mined to support development of the ecosystem.

If the stake alone was sold (not that there is any evidence of this), then I would think either there would or should have been disclosure of any baggage associated with the asset (whether legal, reputational, unrealized risks, or pertaining to strategic business considerations surrounding the use of the asset). If not then it seems like something for the parties to the sale to work out.