I hear the frustration... especially around downvotes, cliques, and the feeling that some good content gets suppressed. That experience does push people away.
Where I slightly differ is the “reset + fork + confiscation” approach. I think that kind of scorched-earth move would create even more division and trust issues, and it would be hard to rally everyone behind it long-term.
But your core point is valid: if the average creator feels like they have no fair chance, growth stalls.
What I’d rather see (and what I think is more achievable) is:
stronger social norms around downvotes (clear reasons, avoid retaliation, use muting/ignoring more often),
more visible, transparent curation trails that support outside-the-circle creators,
and more onboarding + consumption incentives, because without readers, even the best writers feel like they’re posting into a void.
If we fix those, whales won’t feel like “gatekeepers”... they’ll feel like “gardeners.”
I see your point with the removing of assets maybe a board that is independent and does a complete audit and makes sure every transaction is transparent and in the best interest of hive stake holders with them having a blocking authority over DHF funds for a certain period of time to allow for the blocking or challenge of items by having accounts that are small sign up for a proxy vote contract that would auto delegate all hive owned to the board account on demand and be able to wield all the power of the small accounts at once to vote to block certain things or be able to ensure compliance with rules that are consistent for all members. Maybe instead of taking assets if the ownership could not be over come then voting shares are limited in certain situations where actions of the larger players collusion is in question and how that collusion negatively impacts HIVE and if found that the actions are not consistent with a fiduciary relationship then they would also in this case as part of the them holding on to leadership positions need to put up significant collateral that can be slashed and any account that is known to be associated with the account under investigation would not be allowed to vote on the slashing penalty. Losing money if they act in a way that would not be necessarily in the interest of all members should not be tolerated and if they can lose money a good chunk then they wont do it likely.
That idea is more practical... strong transparency + independent oversight could build trust without nuking the chain. The key is making it credible and truly community-aligned.