@davemccoy On the contrary, I think sustainable resource management necessary for mass adoption is the key focus of what we're trying to accomplish here.
Indeed, the goal is for SMTs eventually - ideally dApps running in tandem with STEEM or on centralized servers of their own. Yet this requires ensuring that resources paid for are allocated according to who owns them. In this instance we're not talking so much about users owning Steem but platforms owning larger amounts of STEEM. And those platforms are free to issue SMTs all they want in order to allot whatever of THEIR resources they wish to distribute accordingly to their dApp users. But these dApps must also be able to ensure their proportionate access to the STEEM blockchain.
It might be near-sighted to want mass adoption of a particular use case like a social network such as Steemit. Without some constraint keeping everyone in check, allowing rampant overuse of communal resources can't possibly work out in the long run.
If the use case is relevant and serves a purpose, people will migrate to it. Many may be turned off by Steemit, but I would hope that Steemit isn't the end goal anyways. The fact we're moving towards SMTs suggests that we're looking to become a dApp-friendly blockchain, and that requires some form of order above all rather than a disorganized use of blockchain resources. This is especially the case in regards to the low-SP population who clearly have no reason or incentive to hold onto Steem to begin with.
I believe in having meaningful communities and useful content. But in the context of what Steemit has to offer, some of this might take some finessing as to what the proper amount of resources actually is. The action cost is still declining due to equilibrium, and whether 10x is the answer or not is to be seen... but just because a bar is being set now doesn't really matter as long as the objective of not letting the platform die altogether is kept in check, as it has been as demonstrated by this update post.
I appreciate your reply and the courtesy with which you made your points. I can tell that you believe you are making the right choice. I respect that.
I also realize the point you made about preparing for what you think is going to be a rush of users (non-Steemit related). I am not privy to those negotiations nor do I have any way of knowing if this will be successful or not. I do hope you know what you are doing and wish you the best!
As regards to Steemit, I think you are running very close to killing it. I don't mean it ceasing to operate, I mean it being used as a general social media platform. If you don't care or have priorities that make that seem like no big deal, then I guess you will continue on your current path. If you do care, then I would highly suggest that you make the "engagement" function so small that people won't notice it even exists. If people find out they are getting blocked from doing anything and they find out that "engaging" is costing them something, then it will be the first thing they jettison. That's just a real world way of life.
I have had many (too many) conversations in the last few days with my friends and even with witnesses. The bottom line is most everyone at this point CARES. If you continue down the "Steemit is only a small part of the picture" path, then that will change faster than you currently realize.
Sometimes people immerse themselves into a world and a feedback loop that gives them answers they ask for, but not necessarily the truth. I think this is one of those times. I urge you and the powers within Steemit to take the time to really ask the mainstream before you test whether or not you really care about whether Steemit users stick around. This is intended as constructive advice, because I'm one of those that do still care at this point.