A jury wouldnt do anything, because it would never get in front of one. Cases like this are summarily dismissed all the time... its practically the text book bad libel case.
The statement that NGC is not doing any good is not a statement of fact, it is a statement of subjective opinion. You might think his curation is good, others might think it is bad. That is the very definition of subjectivity.
An objective statement: in 1992, jason broke into my house and had sex with my labrador retriever.
A subjective statement: Jason has not done any good for animals.
An objective statement: NGC broke into the server room and took a dump in the diskdrive of one of the servers
A subjective statement: NGC has not done any good for steemit. He is only interested in money.
The difference is pretty clear, and something anyone who practiced any type of law even briefly would understand.
Note that the objective statements are.... well, objective. They do not require a subjective opinion about who or what is good. I either had sex with that labador retriever, or i didnt.
Again, your statements make me doubt your assertion that you are an attorney, or ever were (I, incidentally, am a practicing attorney). Because this is the very first thing you learn about defamation law.