I've heard this point about reactions and zaps being overwhelming a few times now. I wouldn't have guessed something like reactions change behavior significantly, but I can see how it does.

My understanding of Nostr the protocol is that it intends to be unopinionated, and never tries to say things "we do things this way because it has better outcomes" except when it says "having no opinion here will lead to a better outcome." Whether intentional or not, it ends up asserting that consistency is overvalued and choice should be maximized. It reminds me of lisp in this way. It's a bit counterintuitive, but having no opinion doesn't mean you get all possible outcomes. It means you get all the outcomes that result from not having an opinion (really cool stuff usually) and excludes all the outcomes that require having an opinion (which can be cool stuff too).