...
In the case of the treasury agreement: all forkcoins were always forum property from the beginning. I voluntarily gifted OgNasty the non-major forkcoins, since dealing with them would be more trouble than they're worth. The three forkcoins transferred to me were ones I specified. Airdrops are different. I don't think that OgNasty
should've collected airdrops via forum BTC, but collecting and keeping airdrops was not prohibited by the agreement, and the forum has no agreement-wise claim on those coins.
I don't see it as appropriate to demand (or perhaps even accept) the airdrop proceeds. Because the agreement definitely didn't require it, demanding it now could be perceived as exploiting the political atmosphere here to shake down a counterparty.
I stand by my previous analogy:
I suppose an analogy would be a fine-art storage company selling selfies with famous artworks.
It's annoying because:
- Not asking was unprofessional.
- Taking a private key out of cold storage always has some amount of risk.
- I now have to spend time on this drama.
The airdrop
amount is unimportant, and I'd feel exactly the same if the airdrop amount was 100x more or 100x less. If I'd been holding the BTC, no airdrops would've been received at all, since I never participate in those.
Good points, the analogy stands and can be further extended.
Far more liberties are routinely taken with depositors' funds by banks, unions, retirement pools etc. to generate profits on a regular basis, so the outrage expressed by some members here is grossly exaggerated...
Philosophically it makes sense to hand over the hard-fork coins to the forum that purported to be direct competitors to BTC, like BCH & BSV; but with other airdrops and similar, the treasurer generating added value for himself, while abiding by his duties to the forum, should be totally fine.
Many financial experts would even further argue that it's the sign of a competent treasurer if he can make the assets entrusted to him multiply with reasonably risk-free activities

...