Yes, I know.
I've written that I would kill the curation rewards. Now bots stopped voting on my posts. However, I won't change my mind because of that. Never will.
I cannot remember a single post that I've read from @dan where he wasn't attacked because 'he is a boss at Steemit, he shouldn't do this or that'. It doesn't seem to be fun. I see why he won't post under the known names (if I were he, I would post under an alt account to have fun on what I've built).
Oh, that wasn't what changed my mind.
It took lots of things to change my mind about steemit-- not about Dan. Somehow he doesn't strike me as a guy who's bullshitting. And when you're not-bullshitting, phew!
It gets real tiring.
@abit (nesting limit)
He will with stop posting.
I think he doesn't want to be a target for every fail that happens in an organization he isn't working for, plus blamed by the organization to speak against their decisions.
By the way, I know what you are talking about. You have paid your price to show minnows what they always crying about ('everything is shit because the whale votes'), just to be the enemy and hear more cries, loose witness positions, etc. I've seen your comments here and there about many topics, and always wondered how well you handle conflicts. Cold blood is a very good skill, you have a fixed position on my witness list, and I care who gets my vote despite my tiny influence.
People's reactions are not about numbers, laws, logic, etc. Humans are fucked up algorithms, couldn't be fixed. I don't think @dan will ever used to it. IMO, that's (a part of) why he doesn't communicate much.
Also, he is an idealist, he chases his dreams (I respect him for that), and I think he sees that this platform was a step for that, it cannot fixed by him to be the goal anymore. It doesn't matter he will know the solution or not, he doesn't have enough power to get through it. (politics)
Same for the US president. He 'should' get over it.