I wrote this in one go, in a flow-of-consciousness manner. Don't expect deep analysis 8-)
Steemit is a lot of things; it is also an interesting social experiment.
Here's one way of looking at it: what happens when you put together a great many different people with different ideas about economics, politics and society and strap them firmly to a simple economic model without much leeway for implementing other economic ideas? I would say you get what we have now. Experiments never fail, as their outcomes tell us something about the viability of the model we used. That doesn't mean the miniature economy where the experiments take place can't fail.
There have been many arguments, some supported by game theory and (mainly classic) economic theory, that the way Steemit's economy is set up is the way to go, and, in good American style, the free market and competition are deified. When things are becoming unstable or even start to fall apart, however, it is time to start challenging the underlying theories, in stead of tweaking the parameters or stubbornly defending the One And Only Good Theory.
There have been many initatives to make thing better for everyone, like guilds, but these are just patches, not redesigns. Tweaking a curve here and there is also still well within the existing theory.
What is happening, is that people who are inclined to cooperate are forced to compete, greedy people create conglomerates to make more money, an untouchable elite emerges and starts infighting, fights break out about implementation details of economic theories, etc. but the underlying economic theory is never challenged nor is there the possibility to work together voluntarily in another way.
So, I was thinking: can't we expand the experiment to include other economic models? Maybe one or two other economic models will prevail and coexist; in the current set-up we will never know.
If a group of like-minded people want to share all their rewards equally among themselves, a cooperative endeavour if you will, shouldn't they be given the tools to do so?
If a group of like-minded people want to support someone who isn't doing well in the real world, shouldn't there be a possibility to donate a percentage of rewards to that person automatically?
Isn't the idea that people will buy Steem so they can get a return on investment by curating a pipe dream? Does the economic incentive for curating even work? People are motivated by a great many other things than mere economic considerations. We still have time to do an experiment where there are no curation rewards, or where a poster can indicate he is not willing to share his reward with curators.
Maybe the only way of getting the price of Steem up is not through investment or speculation, but by making Steem a viable currency to buy stuff with in the real world, like coffee in Aceh (yes, you can).
What I am trying to say is: is there maybe a way of offering tools to cater for a range of economic models and individual's ideas about how people can or should work together for a common goal in stead of being stuck in an economic model that is showing hairline fractures in the real world as well?
If things could be set up in such a way that people can voluntarily choose what economic model they want to be in, the social experiment would become far more interesting, and maybe even lead to something that works better or at least caters for the very many very different groups on Steemit.
For some, this may sound as an attack on the very fundaments of Steemit. So be it; I don't think tweaking is going to make things better. You can call me names if you want, if that makes you feel better.