I actually agree with both of you. User retention is an issue but I don't believe that introducing huge instability on the investment side is an effective way to address it and indeed it represents a loss of focus away from user engagement and growth.
If there were some specific compelling proposals to improve user engagement, retention and growth, then I think everyone would be very interested in pursuing them, but does anyone seriously believe that voter nullification is that? I sure don't.
Also, Steem is something new in that it combines both a cryptocurrency/blockchain and and social media platform. Thus it is essential for everyone to appreciate the issues from both perspectives, as well as the recognizing the new issues arising that fall squarely into neither. If we find ourselves divided into Group #1 and Group #2 that is a good step toward failure.
I agree with the points you're making and it's something we definitely need to be careful with.
Now that I think about it, and from your comments, maybe
groupswas the wrong terminology to use. It adds an adversarial quality to it to the comparison. Maybe a better way to describe it would be some sort ofsliding scalein relation to the tactics that need to be employed in order to be successful .I hope I didn't come off seemingly supportable of any form of voter nullification, because that's not the message I want to promote. My goal was simply to explain why I don't think promotion of steemit.com is the answer to the problems we're facing.