"... it creates better incentives for quality content curation."

I disagree. It only creates, both before and after HF21, incentive to extract rewards made possible by content creators. Nothing I've seen creates any reason to consider the quality of content. Financial manipulation of the rewards mechanism enabling greater ROI for voting on particular content does not provide any financial incentive for valuing the quality of the content. It only creates mechanisms that increase or decrease ROI based on metrics like vote timing, size of VP cast, and etc...

"tax[ taks ]
noun
a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand."

Your definition of taxes is not supported by credible sources I am aware of, and I checked several just now. The absence of physical force does not make a mandatory payment something other than a tax. Fraud violates the NAP and does not involve violence either.

The payments to the witnesses, and the funding for SPS proposed, are taxes. That's not hyperbole, nor dramatic. They're mandatory payments required by the platform, and are taxes. Claiming otherwise is semantics, and disingenuous. I expect better of you, whom I have come to respect as an honest and forthright writer.

Please don't abandon those principles in the fervor of debate.

"If quality content creators wind up seeing diminished returns, then they should go to a platform that provides them with better returns.

This statement amounts to an ultimatum, and an invitation for disaffected users to worsen Steem's already poor retention rate instead of seeking to comment reasonably in the hope of improving matters. I can appreciate your passion on this issue. It is something that highly recommends you for your position. It is only commendable in the event that it inspires you to do a great job, and showing users that disagree with you the door does not meet the standards I believe you hold yourself to, nor seems desirable to your employer.

You and I don't always agree, and that is highly acceptable, because it is where we disagree that we can learn each from the other. Telling someone to leave is similar to censoring them, and rather than showing your arguments are more reasonable, reveal you would prefer not to discuss, and implies logical weakness.

I am confident you don't want Steem to be an echo chamber of yes men, unable to learn from the criticism of their peers.