One of the main criticisms of Steemit that I hear is that they don't use their stake to help push the platform in the directions they see would be most beneficial. Why that is the case, I don't know. It could be that Ned is just focused on SMTs and Hivemind, but I think the main reason can be found in a post from Luke Stokes where he says that "He (Ned) essentially said he doesn't care about the first million or two million users. He cares about the next 100 million users.".
It will be interesting to see how much of the Steemit community is poached to EOS. I know a lot of larger players in the Steemit space already talk about their endeavors on EOS, so there's a question of if/when they're leave Steemit for greener pastures.
any governance on a decentralised blockchain should aim to be both lightweight and light touch
That's really supposed to be the core of decentralization, that no one person, group, or entity can shut down the blockchain or specific users. It keeps people from getting censored. Yes, it also means that accounts might not be able to be recovered, but if there's a centralized system that's keeping track of everyone's password to "help them recover it if it's stolen" then is it really yours? What if Steemit's repository gets hacked? Could someone steal the Master Passwords and use them to hijack accounts irrevocably? EOS is still in the early stages, but that will be something that they'll want to get sorted out.
the application and administration of governance over disputes on the chain should at the very least be clear and unambiguous.
Totally agree there.