This can be difficult to understand.
You see, the blockchain is an attempt at solving the Byzantine Generals Problem. And, there are real problems with the current solution. Such as 51% attacks on networks that have few miners.
There are real problems with EOS, and there are real problems with ethereum.
And, they really need to be solved.
Such as, last year with the kitty kat ethereum app. Ethereum didn't have the throughput to handle all the transactions desired.
EOS has problems where you can have your account suspended, and your EOS taken from you by a majority vote.
These are very serious problems. One is a technical issue, the other is a governance issue.
Both need to be fixed in code. (not in the humans using it)
I don't disagree at all. What i am saying though is, some of these code issues may not have existed at all, if humans where flawless. Perhaps, wanting too much to seek a flawless blockchain or one that fixes it all and we may not see the entire picture and be attempting to provide solutions to flaws that never existed. Perhaps, we will have better tech solutions and draw closer to a flawless blockchain, if we as humans involved to where we really understand "humans" will we build blockchains for. Yes, like the governance issue with EOS, that you mentioned, i didn't know of it, i have looked at EOS but once you mentioned it, it is very obvious to me instantly that there is an issue there. Recently too, upon starting to look at eos signup, i noticed that it requires you to get a 12 character username, which i can easily spot as a hassle not only in my case but perhaps in the case of many humans. What i am saying is, perhaps we will create better tech solutions if there is balance, to where we code with a broader understanding of life and humans and the real world too. My third interface is called Macrohard and will be built around this. Many times, the solution as i have noticed even when it comes to coding, is easier to see, if we look at humans and in some cases more than the code itself.
Many times in the development of say ulogs.org, contributing developers may get stuck and for days, the project development stalls, then we find out that the solution was in a simple chat conversation. Perhaps, code is simpler when we break it into very mini-pieces etc apply simple solutions that very down-to-earth and easy to overlook. This is what i want to explore with macrohard and more. Many times too, solutions aren't in the actual code but in this logic that forms the code and this can take the "human" behind the coder into account.
I am not very coordinated now in my thoughts. I do hope it comes out well even a bit. I certainly agree with what you have said.
But looking even closely