Like any other system, scrum can be abused and twisted into something it was never meant to be. A project I worked on had daily scrum-style standups as well as daily, weekly, and monthly status reports; We also had Jira and our boards were closely scrutinized by every level of management and the customer. We happened to use scrum, but you couldn’t look at this and say scrum was at fault for such duplication of information and ridiculous reporting requirements.
Then you have nothing to worry about, you don't have any great developers.
So I don’t think any methodology which involves getting rid of management will be successful, or get widely implemented unaltered.
You might have noticed that the answer is never "maybe your situation calls for trying these small tweaks to the vanilla scrum process..." even though Scrum claims to be about retrospectives and continuous process improvement.
You might be using scrum in an organisation that is otherwise overly restrictive or has build it's own processes around how to seek permission prior to implementation but that has nothing to do with scrum.
How very agile.
Whenever I see a complaint it's usually because someone involved has violated some part of scrum. It's run by the developers. They set what they're planning to work on. No one else should be talking in scrum meetings, and certainly not making decisions based on scrum meetings. It's totally fair to evict everyone else.
Take the hard problems thing. You can tackle hard problems. Saying, "I'm going to try working out this prototype idea and do a literature review of this topic" is perfectly reasonable as a plan for a week or two.
The way they are formulated means there is very little room for solving hard problems (of the type that could result in fifty tickets not being necessary anymore), let alone making prototypes for things if they aren't guaranteed to releasable results for any of the tickets.
