This is why Elite: Dangerous should have been a standalone single player game like previous elite games - no one ever cried NERF! at a single player game.
It's interesting you feel that way. I think the opposite would have been better. Going full community centric instead, having a more balanced law, security and repercussion system to enable equal opportunity in a single shared universe instead of optional shards, with a lack of true, fully committed "we're doing it this way" community forming structures.
What we have instead is something that doesn't cater to either crowd. It's trying to be two things that each can only fully exist in a mutually exclusive way. What we have is six of one and half a dozen of the other right now, with neither the true freedom (re: no need to 'nerf' stuff e.t.c.) you'd get from a single player experience, nor the kind of structures around which healthy in game communities can realistically develop in a massively multiplayer setting. These things are well understood in terms of contemporary game design theory.
FD have done a very good job at constructing, well,
something in between these two diametrically opposed demographics. Their biggest mistake in my opinion was going the kick starter route. They didn't
need to as a basis for funding (the money from the event has been a fraction of total costs). They did it primarily as a test of "is this wanted?". The crowd they initially attracted was of course the aptly coined "old timer" group, of which the kick starter backers and DDS group was almost entirely comprised of.
This means that FD then had a
pledge of responsibility to a group of people chasing a nostalgia from an era MMOs weren't remotely in the public lexicon, and whom had major sway in the core design development of the game;
while, FD, being a company in the modern gaming era, and having decided to make a game around the scale of the milky way (and basic nature of a game's structure like Elite), were in a position that strongly urged them to go down the MMO route, a sensible business decision in terms of potential long term revenue.
So they found themselves in a very tricky situation, with two completely separate islands. One of a formal contract of a pledge of responsibility to the DDS kickstarter funders, acting not to differently as investors, and whom essentially, on the whole, desire a single player experience; and to a larger, contemporary online PC gaming demographic, which will in the long run provide them the majority of their revenue.
What we have from this is what has resulted in the game we see. A split, rather confused game with some very tricky design idiosyncrasies causing it to be neither one nor the other, and provide an incomplete experience to both core demographics.
Anyway, my observations aside, Going full community should have been the choice. It's the sensible thing to support the larger long term demographic and so keep revenue healthy. Even more, having done so would have (already) had plenty-fold positive effects on the social psychology of the in game culture. People would be focused on constructive, emergent points of tension, rather than this meta-game "finger pointing - They're having more fun than I am" crap that happens here on a daily basis in stead. This happens as a result of people filling the vacuum in place of what should be "in-world" politics and tension, that naturally evolves in an MMO with appropriate means of social construct. Something Elite Dangerous has been deliberately kept from supporting.