"...with decentralization Hive is made resilient."

I completely agree. The corrolary is also true, that centralization on Hive reduces it's resilience, weakens it, and threatens it's very existence. That is a problem, because Hive is a pure Plutocracy, in which the size of one's bag determines one's power to govern, and nothing is more centralizable than money. In fact that is money's primary purpose, as legacy industry has depended on pools of capital to provide collective industrial manufacturing infrastructure upon which civil society has depended, and which enabled profit to increase the size of the bags investors possessed.

Steem proved that centralization of power is an existential threat to Hive, to the community upon which Hive depends, and Sun Yuchen showed that centralizing governance through centralizing stake on Hive can destroy the utility of Hive to the Hive community. I contend, and always have, that the real value of Hive is it's community, and the resistance to censorship that enables the community to confer, take each the others' counsel, and decide matters of consequence is of critical importance to the Hive community.

As a result of this understanding, I have long opposed opinion flagging, which demonstrably weakens the community by preventing forthright discussion of matters of consequence. Because of the plutocratic nature of Hive governance, nothing more valuable than money enables opinion flagging to censor the discussion of matters of import to the community, and this not only impacts the individuals censored, but the entire community, deprived of voices that would broaden it's discussion and avail understanding, steering discussion into a preferred narrative by substantial stakeholders.

Yesterday it was revealed that discussions have been ongoing regarding HBD interest, and decisions have been made that the community has not participated in that affect the entire community substantially. Since I disagree with the decision and have had no ability to provide reasons to those implementing that decision, because I do not swing a heavy bag on Hive, I am merely availed the power to vote with my feet. I assure you that this is not beneficial to the Hive community, and that availing the community of ample opportunity to participate in discussion of consequential matters is preferable to Hive than simply swinging a heavy bag in imposing plutocratic government.

We shall see how this works out, because Hive governors, the consensus witnesses, have no ability to restrict how the community votes with it's feet, and are limited to restricting how they participate in consequential discusssions and vote their stake. I appreciate your personal dedication to the power of decentralization to create maximally robust and competent civil society, and hope that dedication includes an aversion to centralization the demonstrably weakens and threatens Hive, by disempowering the community from forthright discussion and participation in governance.

Frankly, Hive is too centralized, and always has been. I doubt the current implementation of plutocratic power will significantly impact the community, but I am absolutely confident that some such will, and that potential reveals not only an existential threat to Hive, but blatantly reveals that the community can be better benefited through improved censorship resistance and decentralization of governance. As Hive has failed, and I fully expect Hive to continue to do so, to increase decentralization of governance, I will again reiterate that competition will arise that eventually provides a preferable governance model, and improved censorship resistance. Since I do not want Hive to fail, I counsel decentralizing governance, and increasing censorship resistance.

Thanks!