There are definitely some interesting ideas here that I have yet to come across on the site and I 100% agree with your centralization concerns.
The issue is that there is little incentive for those at the top to really address these as they benefit from some of the lackluster mechanisms built into the current iteration of the blockchain.
That being said, ideas eventually make their way up the food chain, so I would encourage you to keep brainstorming. It's been awhile since I've seen a post with so many different ideas (related to Steem and Steemit) packed into it.
True, it all depends on how much vision the Steemit elite has. If they want this site to blow Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc out of the water they need to sacrifice short term gains for the opportunity to invest in fairness to get everyone to use the site.
Also, let's not forget that blockchains are open source. If we form a big enough 'political' group and threaten to compete with Steemit that might be all we have to do to get the change we want to see.
If witnesses were more open about their positions (as they are "representatives" of the blockchain), then the "constituents" on the blockchain could then push witnesses that supported them. These witnesses could block future forks on the chain unless desired changes are made. The amount of governance built into Steem is in my opinion one of it's most undervalued features.
While Steem is open-sourced, the issue is that the code is basically being written by Steemit, Inc. and most witnesses welcome their changes with open arms. I think we need more witnesses to push back against certain changes when they or their supporters disagree with them.