Thanks @dana-edwards for the appreciation and exposure.

Applying utility to Steem content is a little complicated. Normally utility influences how much we are willing to pay for something. Paying for it allows us access and not paying denies us access. In regards to Steem, we can access any content for free. Therefore upvotes do not necessarily reflect utility obtained.

What we have seen on Steem is people upvoting themselves or people who will upvote them in return. This will result in good content creators being under rewarded and leaving. Investors should realise that if good content creators leave, the value of the platform is reduced and therefore the value of their investment. This should result in investors supporting content they consider valuable or what they assume others consider valuable. We are starting to see this happen with the changes made in HF21/22.

The problem Steem has is that the distribution of Steem rests in the hands of only a few investors (whales and large orcas) who are unlikely to be representative of the community. As the distribution of Steem increases, the highest rewarded content should become more reflective of the utility people obtain from it.

Other platforms that do not charge for viewing content, such as YouTube, obtain revenue from advertising. The more views, the high the rewards. The views can be considered a rough proxy for the utility the masses obtain from content.