I'm sorry but the real problem with a post like this is it's pandering to one of the main crimes of the mainstream media. It's called Outrage Marketing. The idea is you try and whip up a frenzy of emotion in order to a) sell more newspapers or b) get more views/votes on Steemit. The post could just as easily be framed as a question, as in 'why's @dan doing this?

Now that might not engender such a large response, but at least it would be the start of a civilised discussion, rather than a pile-on.

Now I apologise profusely if that was not your intention, but from where I'm sitting that's really what it looks like.

To me one of the most poignant parts of this discussion is the fact that it demonstrates just how fragile our concepts of 'trust' are nowadays. Someone has taken time and effort to create something which he believes is/will be of value to the world, and releases is to early acclaim. But then, immediately he tries to polish/improve, it's considered to be a threat or an attack. At this time an imaginary threat at that.

So what is the threat? That @dan or someone else will use the new power to 'completely void the voting capability of other users'. Is that really true? And if so, would he use it to ruin the community spirit or to try and improve the quality of the platform in some way? I don't understand why he would do it for the former, rather than the latter.

Anyway, the arguments can rage back and forth ad nauseum, but I would suggest that we try and maintain a credo that has served our civilisation well for a long time.

"A person is considered innocent, until proven guilty".

Peace out!