Technologically that may be true - though there are still some interesting emergent behaviors happening around the early vote penalty - but philosophically it very much isn't. We learned a bunch of scary things from the hardfork process:

• Loss of user assets is not sufficient reason to roll back an update.
• Code review and testing was woefully incomplete, and that incompleteness was kept secret - and the top witness in the best position of anyone to know that was spending his time trying to pump the price instead.
• Steemit Inc.'s development process ignores user experience at every stage, and they seem to be fine with that.
• The elected representatives of the user base make decisions in secret meetings in a private discussion forum.

Apart from some efforts on the code front by mid-tier witnesses, none of this has been addressed, and each of them on its own is very much a "run" signal to me. I'm trying to be patient about wanting to see some movement on these issues, but we're getting to the point where it's not looking good.