I also think that there is a problem here, because this model assumes that voting power is equally distributed - as long as everyone has the same power in the blockchain, it´s a great idea - but as soon as the vote of a minority of people is more worth (because they have more money = more power) we´ll have the same situation as here in Steemit. Few people own the majority of VP and therefore can dictate where the whole network is heading. In this way, what we are experiencing here, is not different to real life situations. As for EOS, they were trying to even this through doing the ICO over 1 year, so that it will become harder for a few whales to accumulate most of the voting power, which in the end won´t change that much in my view, since now these whales just buy EOS every day until they have their desired power. Yes, the voting system and equal distribution of power is broken in a way. I do think though, that the idea of blockchains is changing the way of power distribution in general, because it works like a virus and its hidden dynamics are loosening up structures. Is it perfect and best solution? No, I don´t think so, but it´s the best way we could come up with at the moment and the intentions of @Dan and others who work on this revolution are good. I always try to keep in mind, that for me people like @Dan are geniuses and their way of thinking regarding these topics may be way over me capacity of understanding the inner workings of these systems. I still trust in him and my gut feeling, that he is up to something I still can´t comprehend - also he has proven with Steem (and bitshares) that he is one of these guys, who really walk their talk and get things going, which is by itself something special in a field, that still consists mainly of hype and hot air. The rest, we´ll have to wait and see.