OK, must add that I am not apportioning blame - my one aim since starting way back on steem was to understand the system - as you say, parts of it are complex - and thereby see if it can be improved. I knw, "improved" needs defining too - in this context let's define it as "becoming more decentralised".
One person overtly controlling a network is no different to a group of colluding whales controlling the system. During the steem-coup, one of the original devs posted (sorry, can't recall his name) that he felt sorry, not so much for what was happening, but because it manifested a systemic failure of the system. I thought this brave and is entirely my take on it.
DPOS governance is deeply flawed. If any cabal (group of colluders) does NOT take control, then they become at the mercy of another cabal taking control. So the game is rigged in such a way that "control" becomes an important incentive within a game that is supposed to be "anti"-control. This is even true if such a cabal was a "benign dictatorship" - relinquishing that role means that it WILL be filled - the incentives are too great.
Hence, Blurt comes from the same stable and inherited what IMO is a deeply flawed DPOS governance model. I was not involved at genesis, but within what I said above, the initial setup was for benign control tapering off into (possibly) decentralisation.
Just to add, to your question, I thus think steem/hive/blurt should be closer together on your matrix. The disregard for existing property rights, on its own, would indeed place steem (in its current setup) further away from the immutability property of the chain.
Like I said, the system isn't perfect and in the video I shared the 2 main criticisms against Hive. I think it could be better, but it's still the best we have. I've watched Justin Sun ruin platform after platform. This isn't new.