Would it be oversimplifying if we break the question of 'should there be balance in a game about a cyberpunk dystopian future' down into some more narrow dynamics?
For example, should there be balance in player vs. environment conflict? Can the player ever win against the environment? I would say no.
Should there be balance in player vs. player conflict? I'd say that yes, there should, and that's something the staff can manage through code weighting and data analytics.
Should there be balance in player vs. self conflict? Or whatever that's called. This is again, up to the player. They can overcome their own self, or lose to it.
The one we're circling around on is faction vs. faction conflict. I'd say this should be kind of plug and play, with each faction having enough $ flow to have a set few member roles, and the staffing monitored to ensure a fair playing field. This is the 'do we have the opportunity to beat so and so'. If the players in one faction have put together a plan to defeat the players in another faction, and they have @noted it and discussed it with admin, or (better yet) gone to talk to their faction's token NPC about it, then they should have the opportunity to get good advice and guidance about their chances of success. If it's a stupid plan they should get told it's a stupid plan. If they are missing a key element, they should get told they are missing a key element, and should be given help to identify what resources they lack. But no magical 'here is your solution' to go defeat that faction.
What I am considering these days and don't know the answer to, is should there be a fail condition? A threshold of catastrophic loss past which you can gamble too far, or your stock can drop too low? Can your faction or corporation die out on your watch? Can new blood and a new name step up to take over, and be staffed appropriately to give them a fighting chance? Or will power vacuums and land grabs become part of the normal? Can we re-name and re-brand nightclubs and locations, or do we want to preserve the history (and save the staff some work?). I am waffling on that.
When someone rises to power to become unbeatable, that's another problem. Do the staff owe it to everyone else to unseat the power player? I'd say no. They're going to either kill the game's fun, or they're going to generate so much conflict that it enlivens the game. And eventually they will leave or fall; they always do. I'd say the staff's role at this kind of point is more of checking in on people who are being impacted, encouraging them if they are doing well in the theme, and maybe giving nudges along the way or attaboys ICly.
My 2 cents. Never been staff, no idea how that works, speaking about their role only because I think everything else not mentioned should fall on the playerbase. To the playerbase I'd say, oldbies especially, if you're running a strong faction and doing it well, turn your eyes on a bigger prize (work with the Staff if you think you've won Sindome and need them to make some bigger bad). Be sure you have a weakness and be willing to let it be exploited. Welcome the competition when it comes knocking on your door. It's okay to fall and have to start over, because somebody else will rise up.