"I'll repeat the same answer as before: Steem has other value, and it's derived by its ability to mine people for creative content by exploiting human psychology as clearly indicated in the whitepaper. All stakeholders are benefiting from this."

All social media platforms undertake this ability. The only difference is that Steem enables folks to receive emuneration from this directly. Most platforms centralize that money instead.

"...why shouldn't they curate themselves?"

Because, by the mechanism I have exhaustively explained, this reduces the value of the stake they HODL. That you still ask this question despite my exhaustive explanations, that you, as I have repeatedly noted, have simply not addressed, reveals that you do not understand what I have explained. Either you ignore what I say, are not competent to grasp it, or deliberately affect to pretend to.

It is therefore unlikely, after repeated attempts to provide that necessary understanding to you have been unsuccessful, continuing to do so will succeed. You have not successfully answered, or rebutted, or refuted my points in any way. You just either refuse to discuss them, or cannot.

"Maybe I could have chosen my words better to have prevented such a situation."

No. You could not express this principle without it meaning what it does. I did not 'invert' what you said. It is simply what you mean to say that is false and insulting. I am not insulted, because it is false. I mention it because it's one example of how your thinking is muddled by basing your statements on falsehoods. A thing is true, or it is not. If it is not, then all subsequent statements based on that false premise are false, too. This statement is not the cause of your assumptions being false, but is based on factual misunderstandings that underlie both it, and all other understanding. Enabling you to grasp that it is false enables you to change your mind and become right. Were you interested in being right, you would take advantage of that opportunity to do so.

What did you do with that opportunity?

You simply reaffirmed your faulty understanding by rephrasing it, rather than correcting it. The words you use are but expressions of your understanding and beliefs, and merely changing the words you use to express false beliefs and mistaken understanding does not create factual basis for your statements.

What I have become completely certain of in this conversation is that you have determined upon a belief and are prepared to maintain it despite any facts that may prove it false. This is a common human trait. Study has revealed that people that deliberately deny facts to maintain their social membership are rewarded by a shot of dopamine when they do.

This is your brain on drugs.

"There is probably a myriad of reasons that steem loses value."

Yes, and inflation is a minor one. However, you used inflation as a shield against discussion of the highly potent reason I have discussed, and this is disingenuous, appearing to be a deliberate ploy to divert the discussion away from points you want to ignore.

Such ploys do not increase understanding and development of reasonable policy, and this is why they are useful to people that intend to support their position, right or wrong.

"My guess is nobody else will make a real killing on steem until there's another untethered BTC pump and dump. It will likely happen again, and when it does, the smart people are going to dump hard and fast, leaving new suckers to hold the bag."

Given that the greatest value of Steem lies in it's ability to enable people to self govern, rather than financially profit, I don't agree. It may pump and dump, but that is not it's most powerful attribute. When all the profiteers are gone, folks intent on voluntarist interactions will be able to use it to govern themselves by discussing and financially effecting policy.

In the meantime, it is relatively censorship resistant, which makes it far preferable to most other media for me.

"However, most of the crabs won't get out of the bucket..."

I'm not even sure how you can state this with a straight face. User retention YOY has been shown to be somewhere around ~5%. That means that 95% of the crabs leave. That's how bad Steem is being implemented. That's the impact of profiteering. It destroys the endeavor it sucks the value out of.

That is why I proposed a mechanism that would remove the financial incentive to extract rewards that should be being invested in content creators. Until such a mechanism is successfully deployed, Steem will continue to perform at this level, because it is designed to facilitate profiteering, and that is utterly contrary to capital gains. Capital gains is what builds endeavors into successful enterprises. Profiteering can only destroy them.

Here we are.