.. and it seems STEEM is not something we should remotely consider to invest in given the history .
Fair enough, but it assumes BM didn't learn from past mistakes ..
Many could say BM's biggest mistake was in trying to make it
truly decentralized in its governance. There is a reason the United States was constructed in this way---to make big changes very difficult. Since Bitshares governance model has essentially created a DAC that doesn't even allow for key developers (at the very least) to get funding on the core project, it has forced people for a very long time to sacrifice at ridiculous levels just to keep it alive (why you have seen many devs leave, I'd suspect). Now that isn't really BM's fault imo...because it is our choice that he gave us.
Instead of the ridiculous argument that most in crypto give: "if you don't like the governance or the way a chain evolves, just sell them and leave"...
He and the team gave us a crypto that gives us another option--to change it from within & have that decision logged transparently on a blockchain. How people do not understand the absolute pristine beauty of this blows my mind.
In the long-term, I think this is going to make a great deal of sense for bitshares because it is the foundation. If we eventually start seeing many people using graphene blockchains, it makes a great deal of sense for bitshares to have this kind of governance model--given that we start including graphene-based blockchains' leadership at the table for committee positions. We could eventually even give the top 11 marketcap graphene chains' leaders a guaranteed spot at the table to make committee decisions for the Flagship (which it was always said to be). Then each chain could bring up changes internally and serve as the test beds for those changes. If the changes go well...those chains' leaders could bring them as proposals to the community and have them voted up or down.