I would not say to my doctor that I found something on the Internet which may contradict what he just diagnosed. I know my doc for about twenty years and trust him. I know his practise, how to reach him on phone and I therefore give myself easily into his hands.

Why are you saying you are wasting your time when this exchange of comments can be a means to establish something like trust? Just because I am cautious and openly admit that I have difficulties in giving trust right away?

I don't understand, what are you meaning with "they are a part of the community" in this sentence:

We're not steemit's staff, they are a part of the community like every other stakeholder.

Who, Steemit Inc?

If you would like to know if I have read the whitepaper, just ask me if I did. I'll answer you honestly.

My understanding of decentralization may differ from yours. You talk about a complex matter and I don't think the concept/definition of decentralization is already a fixed one. It's in the development and can contain many flaws as chances. You may look at this papers:

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/12167461.pdf
https://www.sowi.uni-stuttgart.de/abteilungen/oi/publikationen/wsi_schrape_oss.pdf
https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/46002/ssoar-2016-schrape-Open-Source-Projekte_als_Utopie_Methode_und.pdf?sequence=1

My proposals connected to the systemic consensus method. If you read carefully you will notice that I offered what busies peoples minds currently. But I am not at all determined what I will do with the outcome. I am just really interested in the results. I invited everybody to discuss the proposals and add something.

You are working right now in a group of witnesses. This method might be something for you. I wanted to get attention for the method and used the Zeitgeist. Before, I chose a totally different topic in my first post on systemic consensus. It was a bit too complicated. So that is my second run.