if the entire plan is "Phase 1: Stop powering down and selling 800k STEEM per month,"
Please read carefully. I did not say that was the entire plan. I said that plan alone would be a significant improvement to the status quo.
For the umpteenth time there have been numerous plans which involve various forms of community governance and that, in turn, clearly involves more than "hire people when we get into trouble" although that too could be part of what happens under such a model. In particular, it involves attracting, building, and supporting a team (how tightly or loosly coupled that team might be is TBD, though both can certainly work) as quickly as possible which, unlike the current one, will actually be accountable to stakeholders (or, indeed, to anyone at all).
One can not entirely rule out an "orderly" path from here to there via radical reform of the processes and policies if the incumbent team, but experience gives reason only to be hopeful, not optimistic. Failing that, the precondition to building a replacement team is ejecting the current one, which has been both obstructionist and ineffective. Yes, that may involve disruption, as an unavoidable cost. I do not seek such disruption but I also do not seek to avoid the unavoidable.
(emphasis yours)
Well then I misunderstood the part where you said:
(emphasis mine)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"That alone" implies a portion of a larger whole.
Example:
Note that in this example, as with Steem, one could stop with the initial item and accomplish something of value. That does not imply that one must or would do so.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit