With Steem, Justin Sun literally has all the power and took funds right out of people's accounts. My political bias?
What you are suggesting is very complex and not legible to normal people. The irony is that Blurt is based off the same system so what does that say about Blurt then?
You are right though, the axes don't describe decentralization, they cover two main factors and with all the questions provided you ended up with the final result on the spectrum to the right.
Are any of the questions wrong then? Are any missing?
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.
It happened the other way round. Hive forked and froze Justin Sun's tokens on the Hive chain. So Justin Sun retaliated and froze the Hive developer tokens on the Steem chain.
So @blurtyield is right they're both the same. Important to note that Hive did the freezing of funds first. They also froze the funds of innocent bystanders like @steemchiller (of Steemworld stats) simply because he wouldn't take sides. Then said they'd let him in if he "apologised" - he didn't.
Hive has established a precedent of freezing coins not just for political reasons but for thought crime - poor steemchiller lost his coins for the crime of not saying anything. That's North-Korean style authoritarianism. Arguably worse than Steem.
That is incorrect. Justin Sun bought the ninja mine staked which was promised to the community for community funding. They froze the account to prevent ruining the platform by undelegating all the community projects (which he did). He then colluded with exchanged illegally to take user funds for governance to get his way. They then froze out his funds which shouldn't be his and put them in the DAO fund to be used as it was always intended and promised.
They only didn't airdrop funds to people who supported Justin and corrected any mistakes which happened to me. I was pretty vocal about it that I didn't respect that move but I get it. Justin Sun literally drained Steem from many accounts directly.
Also nothing stops Blurt from the same, it's the same infrastructure.