I did explain to @andrarchy that the hardfork was suggested (as I understand it) because of the idea of adjusting the amount of Steem paid to witnesses, since AFAIK (from reading the Steem Whitepaper and considering how the mechanisms work) a hardfork would be needed to make that a reality.

The current situation is that developers, for example, are expected to dedicate significant amounts of their lives to creating solutions for Steem with no guarantee of remuneration for their efforts and no guarantee of even receiving feedback on the designs before they get started. From a project management and even capitalist standpoint, this is far from ideal and stops a lot of creativity before it gets started. When there are ample funds available to improve the situation, it makes sense to consider the options for doing that.

I am a witness and I know already that the top witness slots are being dominated currently by those who are favored by just one account on Steemit - which is an account that is actually anonymous. So basically, we have a situation where the entire infrastructure's future is being decided by one account (@freedom) - so it is that the current situation is one of top-down control already in some senses. The purpose of having witness voting is to ensure that the 'market' for witnesses reflects the wisdom of the crowd and not so much the wisdom of the plutocracy. Do you consider that plutocracy is an ideal method of organising a culture? To me it is exactly what you say you don't like, which is top-down control.

By effectively democratizing a way of rewarding creative ideas that help the value of Steem to increase and that enhance the co-operation in the community, we serve both major elements that form Steem (Currency/Capital and Creativity/Community). In a political sense this seems to me to be a direct drawing together of what some people pigeon hole as 'capitalism' and 'socialism' into some kind of balance. I see almost every day that people who are rigidly into the thinking of one side of these political groups or the other will fail to see where I am coming from because they put me into a box that I don't belong in and assume I am saying something that I am not. Staunch socialists and/or communists will accuse me of being too pro-capitalist and staunch capitalists will accuse me of being a communist.. lol

Those who already get where I am coming from just find the whole thing either amusing or tiring. What I seek is real balance where no-one is being overpowered.

The motivation for funding creative projects from the witness fund, for me, is as follows:

1. The amount paid to top witnesses is quite large - I think in the region of $50,000+ each per year. This is on top of their earnings from posts and any 'background benefits' they receive from donations intended to sway their decisions around hardforks etc.
   Given that the actual job of running a witness server takes a tiny fraction of most people's time, if we were to calculate an hourly rate for work done then they would be being paid a very large amount per hour - probably over $150 per hour. Witnesses are not the developers - they are not required to know all the ins and outs of the code. The developers have the really important role here and it is they who are most fundamental to the network.
   Lowering the amount automatically received by top witnesses will not inhibit their ability to fulfill their service to the platform and will stimulate market forces to promote creativity.

2. The witness system is intended, by design (top-down design from it's creator btw) - to facilitate an automatic process of witness 'shuffling' in the cases where it is necessary. I actually don't understand the fear that 'top witnesses will leave' when that actually doens't make a massive difference to the daily running of Steem. The system automatically replaces top witnesses with other witnesses in that case and no-one will notice the difference in the sense of day to day activity.

3. The new schematic suggested in this thread is one where the same top witnesses can achieve the same funding they get now, or more, by claiming project payouts - so those who have projects (which many do) may even gain more and like the system more than the current one.

4. The idea of 'taking the funds from someone else' can easily be reversed and be said to be what the current system already does - the Steem funds are divided among users and witnesses - so is it the case that users currently 'take the funds from witnesses'? or that witnesses currently 'take the funds from users'?
   It's not really either, it's just that the schema defines that a certain amount will go to each group and that the percentages involved can be changed if it is found to be beneficial - a change which can be manifested through the mechanism of a hard fork. The issue here is whether the funds are best used to give to witnesses or whether the new idea generates better value for everyone who owns Steem. I know that Jerry repeated himself quite a bit in his post, but I think he did make this point clear.

5. By using a model of direct funding for new projects from the blockchain, rather than donation - there is a strong statement made that Steem supports innovation and that steem values creativity as the cornerstone of it's success. The steem whitepaper goes to some length to explain that one of the key features of Steem is that it overcomes the problem of donation systems that require people to decide whether or not to give their own money to others because the money WILL be given to someone - so the problem shifts to WHO to give to and away from whether or not to give. That is a fundamental feature of Steem and Steemit since the beginning. The project pool simply leverages this intelligent design in a way that can improve the experience for everyone in a way that everyone has a voice in. There is no overpowering in that, that I am aware of.