Wow, fresh perspective, love your points here 😄

But my main point is that the system self-corrects naturally and does not really need it's basic structure to be tweaked. Focusing so hard on the rules and calls for the rules to be changed misses the bigger picture.

It might be true that the system corrects itself, and you say you've seen this happen so that is very heartening. I think Steemit really is something unique and you've outlined that very well, I actually got pretty excited reading your comparisons and short history of pay-for-content.

On the one hand, changing things too much without longer beta tests will not yield enough data to make informed decisions about what to change or whether to change at all. On the other, I think experimenting and altering can be really beneficial, and we're still officially in beta here.

It's probably worth noting that in the early days of Bitcoin Satochi was able to defend his core concepts from changes proposed by excited and skeptical crypto enthusiasts thanks to extremely meticulous design, I think steem has an aspect of that original thinking ahead spirit. Maybe you're right to advocate leaving it as is and focusing on mainstream adoption.

You didn't comment directly about subscription payments (Wired.com for example allow you to browse ad-free if you pay) but I assume this falls under "Most news sites are close to being broke and are being supported by their print editions."

Thanks 👍 💯