Lots of mixed thoughts here.
"They will never ascend to the top ranks without the approval of those above them" - I'd argue this is what a community is about - you want to raise to top ranks, you play by the rules of those who were there before you (as shown by their accumulated HP). Unlike in territorial nation states, there is no coercion involved: you want to try, you can. You don't like it, you go someplace else, there's no cost invoved in leaving (as in the physical world where you need to pay for transportation and find a shelter in a new place) and no coercion (as in borders, visa, etc.)

I'd also argue that "raising to top ranks " is necessarily going to be a rare event, very few will manage because by definition the top ranks are rarefied. And as an example of a very successful blogger I offer you @tarazkp.

Also, there is no promise made, express of implied, that anyone will be able to raise to the top ranks. Some will manage, some will not even try - I'm not here to raise to top ranks, I just enjoy what the platform offers. Again, there is no coercion, you are free to come and go as you please so there is no need to compete.

There is also no promise made that anyone will be encouraged to say whatever they like, despite the existence of a "free speech" current here. It's a community and its rules are shaped by the weighted opinions of its members: if a significant number of members consider you are a Putin troll like @baah , you get downvoted. Still, you can post and even make a buck or two.

I would argue that it is happening now without AI.

Yes, exactly what I'm saying too. I was answering to @r0nd0n , whose argument in this post is that "with AI, the solution to abuse of reward pool is to deny blogging rewards to everybody".

They are essentially self censoring in order to this. It's essentially the same as YouTubers creating videos that will appeal to Googles advertisers.

And so they should, in my opinion. Again, community comes first. You want to be here, you abide by the rules of the community. You want to be completely free to say whatever comes to your head, you can still say it here but if it goes against community opinion, claiming to also make money out of the community budget while flouting community consensus is ... a bit rich!

The important difference with Google and YouTube is that in business-like setting the reward distribution is opaque and structurally unfair (otherwise there would be no profits).

Overall you are right, Hive must change. But "removing blogging rewards" seems like a very bad idea. A really bad idea.

In my opinion the direction of change should be "non monetary". Hive should rather work on social aspects: values and principles, mission and vision, and one or two leading figures.

I've developed that in many past articles, such as :
Steem Social Lab: we need a "charter"
or
Hive: waiting for Ryoshi