Now if you ask, was the coin wipe necessary? YES, it was, because otherwise the fork would have the same 51% vulnerability. There was NO other way to solve this.
Does this mean that Steem was vulnerable to this in the first place? Yep, it was, and many people were aware. The change of leadership in Steemit Inc made it easier to understand the need for people, it didn't create the need.
I'm pretty sure it could, and I am still waiting for the moment that will show that.
Doesn't change the fact that Steem as is doesn't work as a blockchain and as such doesn't serve for most projects. Do invest in Steem as a community, fwiw, but don't call it a blockchain at this point.
The same way, a cake can be absolutely amazing, it still isn't right for me if my focus is avoiding sugar. Decentralization is like avoiding sugar, you can have great governance with Justin but it isn't the same as what DPoS is designed around, and as such we move away from it. Enjoy your sugary cake, we take our sugar free diet here.
At this point, it's a blockchain and changing people's balances does take more work than it would were it on a SQL server.
It literally just demands a software upgrade. There is no consensus needed to get it through, because it's all in JS's hands.
We "those who cared to move to HIVE".
Honestly, HIVE is HIVE and STEEM is STEEM. The people on STEEM should care about THEIR governance.