I have severe reservations about a system whose acceptable failure mode is "stop everything", especially when it keeps getting touted as the "best" solution and the "most transacted" chain.
I'm sure you can see how both of those goals diverge?
Also, why don't more exchanges carry Steem to begin with? You've obviously been around for a while, what is the reason for severe lack of fungibility?
To be honest, I'm not holding my breath. The reason you need complex "solutions" to these problems is because the underlying PoS forces you to -- and by doing so, they're just bandages over the problems Proof-of-Stake introduces -- either directly or tertiary.
Its just like Ethereum and their gradual realization that they can't scale, so they come up with increasingly complex answers instead of refactoring their base assumptions.
Yep. Obviously never ever having a single software glitch would the the goal.
We are a top 40 coin (not a top 20). The integration with STEEM is more complex than other chains. Many exchanges also want $1M+ listing fees. We have been getting added to more and more exchanges though. Higher marketcap would help.
I'll have to disagree with you here on a technical level. The glitch we are talking about would have happened on a PoW chain too, if the consensus rules had been written on top of a PoW chain. It had nothing to do with PoW vs. DPoS.
Can you elaborate on how the issue we are talking about is an instance of STEEM running into a limitation that needs complex answers, and what the base assumptions are?