@lukestokes is the one to best address the issue of how to evolve the development process and governance (since he has probably thought about it the most and also written some about it) but as I mentioned, in practice, currently witnesses can only veto. There is movement in the direction of a more inclusive development workflow but if you want change now, lobby Steemit (the developers) and then once they release something you like, lobby witnesses to approve it (or if they release something you don't like, lobby witnesses to reject it).
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Ah got it, thanks. It's been close to a year since the last HF. I thought that the 7x difference between curation and non-curation would've been causing an alarm. What has been stopping any tweaks and changes to move away from the situation? Or perhaps they're seeing value in self-voting/vote-trading that many are not seeing?? Confusing lol.
It isn't a priority of Steemit Inc nor on their roadmap. Their approach is focused on SMTs and other priorities. The idea of decentralizing development so that priorities aren't solely determined by Steemit Inc absolutely has validity but is first of all a complex transition to pull of and second of all, I also see some skepticism that the system "too new" to be ready for that..I don't agree with the latter, however, I do agree with the former and because of the scale and complexity of such a transition, it will only happen if there is widespread and non-reluctant support for it.