I'm not quite sure how to understand you. What exactly are you intending to do here on Hive?

It is, as far as I know, a centrally controlled blockchain based on crypto tokens. It is technically enabled by Witnesses, who also set the rules and provide the technical requirements and updates. If all witnesses were unanimously of the opinion that certain misbehaviour of a blockchain applied globally by the users is against the rules, the design or the programme would probably have to be changed significantly. They would be of the conviction that they must control themselves instead of others. Also, a government, which is at the same time investor and profiter of an organization or company, has a conflict of interest, no?

The Witnesses form something like a central government. If this central government agrees that the rules should remain as they are now, how should a change in these rules, including the code to be changed, be brought about?

Or do you assume that it has nothing to do with technical feasibility? But rather that the entire user community agrees that voting in circles and buying votes are dishonest and that downvotes are dishonest because of a disagreement of opinions? We have had this conflict here on the blockchain for years and it seems to be insoluble. (I actually could say a lot more about this particular observation, but leave it for now).

I don't really understand what you're getting at. When you talk about conformity and a technocracy, in what exact way are you referring to Hive? Are you saying that technocratic dominance is exercised because of Hive's design? How should I think of this and what are your suggestions? Or is it something else?

Asked all that, I think that the founders and the subsequent dominant players on the blockchain actually don't really agree, but that changing the rules is probably also technically unfeasible in the sense that, for example, nothing can prevent the creation of multiple accounts. One would have to set up such strict barriers, which would in turn deter new users, such as verification by an ID card (which would probably be a super disaster for data protection reasons). Nevertheless, it would not change anything about the multiple accounts of the existing users. I am somewhat at a loss to understand your posting.

All that said, I am absolutely against a technocracy that centrally controls the individual. But the question now is also how much the individual actually feels controlled...? I for one am not an official part of a community here on Hive, I am more of a loner who is in contact with a manageable number of other users here or regularly reads and comments on their posts - but then I do it with much engagement and quality. So for me, that counts.

I've been running a delegation to SteemSTEM, ... and right now I don't even know how to undo that, since I'm no longer accessing Steemworld.org. .... Just as an aside.

The question for me is how many of the users would actually still be around if they couldn't or didn't want to trade cryptos - or consider it a long-term investment. Which leads me to suspect that content is in principle for many, if not most, of a subordinate nature or even completely meaningless and that content provision is basically only significant in terms of quantity and dimension to advance the blockchain. So that content and user numbers actually only seem to have quantitative, but little qualitative significance.

For me personally, the whole thing is not an incentive to make money or trade in cryptos, I'm not sure if it would make a long-term investment, I'd be surprised. I use this purely as a blogging platform, but nothing more. I don't know how many of my kind there are here who don't care much about finances. Since there is not much traffic on this platform, I am already asking myself if blogging outside this sphere would not make more sense because building up a really regular readership containing more than 3 readers would actually make more sense. The one and only reason I remain here is that I got used to it (design, ergonomics, appearance, operating habit, etc.). AND those 7-10 people I care about or am interested in.