RE: Bloggers: Would you mind sharing 50/50 with those that upvote you?
It's almost like I used an adjective there or something. Once you have a significant user-base, when you iterate it has to be with the consent of the users you're affecting, or you alienate them and destroy your growth. But you seem to be totally interested in forcing user growth with spurious economic theories rather than actually doing anything to support the people who are already engaging in the behaviors you want to see.
I've seen this a lot in organizations: they're blessed with a strong crop of early adopters, because early adoption tends to be when driven, dynamic people arrive. And they decide that they can just throw them by the wayside because there will always be more.
There won't always be more. However much you optimize your algorithm the people you are attacking now will never be replaceable.
You mean non-consensual? I'm not sure how that works.
All of the forks are voted by stakeholders via witness votes (and by mechanism that requires a super-majority of 17 or 18 witnesses; in practice it is usually all). It's pretty likely there was at least one stakeholder aka user dissenter for every hard fork (for whatever reason, rational or otherwise). In fact the last fork had one well-known witness and significant stakeholder who dissented. So in that sense none of them are non-consensual and all of them are.
Some blockchains (Bitcoin best known of course) have an ethos of essentially never making these sorts of changes, on the theory that the benefits of (just about) any changes is always outweighed by the cost of disruption. Steem does not have that. If we wanted it, okay, but suddenly choosing this half-baked setup as the switching point seems bizarre at best. That said, I'm sympathetic to the position of not making changes when their benefits are not clear and significant. In this case we probably disagree on that conclusion.
(For one thing, I would point out that there isn't any growth so we can't "destroy [y]our growth" as you suggest. There are many signups but attrition is such that the active user base is not growing. There are real problems here that need to be solved by real improvements. Trying to protect what we have, be that user base or (non-) growth, is not enough.)
Maybe this change will or won't happen, but there will certainly be more. They will or won't be non-consensual depending on your perspective as discussed above.