... I like to emphasize that I am deeply disappointed by Steemit and Hive.

It is completely understandable your opinion, particularly from your perspective as a content creator to the project(s).

In open source platforms of the past, like usenet, if one made similar criticisms they would be told to go and code it. It may still be the same yet present days find me an old retired fart not half as hip as my ego may have considered itself to be back in the day. 😎

It is true, though, that the power to bring such changes is an option to anyone caring to take the time and possessing the needed programming skills. The blockchain(s) have wonderful programming libraries in Python and Perl, now, which allows anyone to interface with the blockchain(s)'s data through self created scripts. If not many computer users can do that, then we must blame the dumbing down of computer users to the psychopathic monopolist control freak Bill Gates. To not to be able to program in the Information Age is comparable to not being able to write in the Industrial Age in my opinion.

That said, my disappointment with the STEEM and HIVE projects is slightly different than yours. My disappointment is that there are two projects in the first place. The fork did not come forward with changes to the technology of the code at the time of the fork, like the block size issue of BitCoins' fork. Not even witness vote retention was addressed!

Instead, it was more an administrative action much like when Etherium had its fork. The difference was that one fork of Etherium (the newer version) rolled back the clock to prior to a smart contract creation which ended up unintentionally freezing muckmillions of tokens. With HIVE they, instead, rewrote history taking token wealth from some accounts and simply not registering the token wealth of others. It was based on power and vindicativeness in my opinion. Of course the narrative which was sold was with the intention of more decentralisation. Let's see how that worked out...