So, your premise is essentially because something isn't working according to the whitepaper that it reflects poorly on our chain.

I don't think that necessarily follows but there are more pressing matters than the broken peg. People engaging in meaningful curation less is one such thing.

After all, the white paper suggests voting should be an evaluation of a network contribution. What stands at odds w meaningful curation?

What activities are you currently engaged in that detract from meaningful curation? Selling votes for one which MB still does engage in... although I am glad y'all have made strides to prevent the votes from being abused.

Even so, the case can be made that vote selling undermines the very effort you are engaged in to increase Steem's demand. I've bought more Steem than I ever had once I was filled w hope from the #newsteem spirit and many repenting from selling votes. Not sure if it lasted considering such services still exist. Web based promotion would be such an easy transition with the right ppl so I don't know why we haven't ceased from reward pool based promotion. I digress but my point stands about being consistent.

I think it's inconsistent to make a general white paper appeal while one is engaging in activity contrary to it (irrespective of what Ned's former assent to the practice). If you want to make an appeal, it ought to be more specific as to why failure in this particular aspect of the WP is detrimental.

Otherwise, it seems rather arbitrary. So, why precisely does the peg being broken reduce demand for our native token. That's the question I hope to understand.