RE: If we capped the DAO

It's a complex topic because there is a realistic amount of money that has to be paid out in order to keep the core system running. On the flipside, those who are doing that work typically hold a lot of Hive and so are incentivised already to 'MAKE HIVE GREAT AGAIN' 😅
If the core developers get paid no matter what, then they aren't even answerable to the community. However, if they don't get paid then they may quit and that risks Hive as a whole.

This cuts to the crux of the 'ninja mine' and the fundamental dishonesty of it that led to Steemit inc. taking the action it did and that caused Hive to exist in the first place. Those same tokens are paying for core development of a system that was always intended to be decentrlised - which fully includes the potential for competing Hard Forks to be proposed - with the community voting on which one is best. Some people see this as a terrifying 'challenge to the network' - but that's incorrect. Without the system supporting competing Hard Forks, it is not decentralied. But I digress.

Reducing the amount that can be paid out from the DAO during hard times might address some issues temporarily, but I will remind that the bigger problem is that the DAO is not being spent optimally. With improved (any) performance tracking we would likely see an increase in ROI, new users and token value. It's totally wrong to withdraw funding from core systems while other projects that are arguably bordering on fraud continue to receive payouts regardless (even if they are reduced).

I'm with @starkerz in that Hive needs a system to tender for workers to complete tasks that the community agrees need doing, holding them to account - instead of just relying on community members proposing what needs doing and the community latching on to the goals without really knowing whether the people involved can deliver.