It has already succeeded. It succeeded upon Hive's creation.

Because there was no mechanism that enabled governance to overcome the raw weight of the Founder's stake, which was no longer being crippled by @ned's forbearance, the Steem oligarchy that had been successfully overthrown by Sun Yuchen were left with forking Sun out, as Hive did.

The governance mechanism on Hive is identical today to that on Steem then. You mock my ability to deploy stake, but it is obvious that the stake necessary to govern Hive is deployed currently, and that entities with nominal means to do to Hive what Sun did to Steem exist. It is a far lower cost to seize control of Hive governance than Twatter's, which reflects the value of our network after shedding that portion of it which remains Steem.

Seems to me Hive should be decentralized such that seizure of governance isn't possible.

It is how witness voting is weighted that makes that seizure, or retention, of governance facile for those with nominal stake and interest. That is how you like it, and that is how it is, so you deride potential alternatives. I would prefer that things were a little less oligarchal, so I propose alternatives that would not significantly worsen anything while improving resistance to financialization.

This is as it should be, lacking only rational, rather than emotional, justification of the status quo, as mockery is far more effective than it should be in persuading the thoughtless, from my perspective. I submit that it is exactly that level of rational debate that establishes the relative value of Twatter and Hive in the view of most people.

Withal, I am left with the impression that you simply have no substantive rational arguments against such mechanisms as I propose.