AES shareholders have reason to distrust pheonix, that is precisely why that fork exists. It is in their best interest to have a business partner that is not run by the very person they distrust. If the shareholders use grants (their only true power) to sway their potential business partner into electing a decentralized body instead of a known untrustworthy body, I don’t see that as being dishonest.
It’s one company telling another “If you hire the CEO that we just fired, we will not do business with you.”
Basically, AES has made the statement that there can be consequences for voting certain ways. The entire creation of AES was done using this concept. If I create a dozen blockchains, each excluding different address for voting in different ways, is that dishonest of me? Is it only dishonest if I then support those blockchains and lobby exchanges to add their tokens?
Every vote can be used as a fork point. Indeed, it can be argued that every vote is a fork where the minority branch concedes to disappear. AES has made it clear that anyone at any point in time can choose to award people that vote one way as opposed to another. Is that the dishonesty? How can you possibly avoid the potential for consequences of voting one way vrs another without an anonymous voting scheme?
As a side note, AES holders have made no motion yet promising BKS holders anything, so I’m curious as to who precisely is being dishonest here. That’s like saying the US government is being dishonest because people might fear legal repurcussions for voting in pheonix.
