My big question is this: if there is a long term vested interest in Steem, can someone please explain why the largest stakeholder @steemit is powering down 100% of its vests, at $1M a week? This account holds 60% of all steem in the supply, and does not use its voting power for wealth redistribution. The only logical reason I could see for this is overhead and expenses, but I personally have a very difficult time believing Steemit.com has a $4M a month burn rate. This would be a non issue in my eyes if @steemit was vested, not powering down and voted on content. The lack of the latter logically and rightfully gives me doubts about long-term vested interest. Not trying to be a downer, and I believe in steem, but this reality challenges my optimism. Some kind of explanation would be quite beneficial imo. Please, correct me of you see holes in this perspective or fallacies in how I have drawn these conclusions or you have some links to relevant explanations. Thank you!
@steemit is the one account that isn't a true account. It is the account that generates the funds to support steemit. Read the white paper and you will understand how the "money" supply is increased. And look at what the true number one and two holders are doing . . . .