There is no need for them to show interest yet, that because of two main reasons:
The market is still not too dependent on more traditional evaluation principles. Cryptoes itself have not gone mainstream yet and a larger userbase still means massive value growth. Remember that most tech IPOs have happened based on years of negative numbers but massive user growth. Some of those companies did not even make a profit when going public yet became member of the elusive most valuable companies. Thus as long as Steem somehow follows the market’s average performance it is fine.
The second reason would be the large stake held by Steemit Inc. While that stake isn’t used to vote, it also is a sword of Damocles at the same time. Imagine governance doesn’t approve of SMT implementation? What happens with that stake? What happens to the value of Steem? Did Steemit Inc just waste two years doing nothing with any return? Additionally, so far, they are the only ones capable to deliver a HF (knowledge level based).
As long as those two elements are the status quo it is ok for some of those larger stakeholders. If things change tho, expect their interest to be piqued.
Yeah I understand your points.
My angle is from a slightly frustrated newer witness, who is on the lookout for accounts interested in our approach.
https://steemit.com/witness-category/@steemcommunity/introducing-steemcommunity-a-witness-project-by-abh12345-and-paulag
Whilst some of the accounts not voting are likely Steemit owned, and passive investors waiting for the herd, I do see some accounts interacting with votes - these ones i'm a little confused by. It's a bit like taking out, but not putting in - especially when the votes are focused on few accounts, some of them witnesses.
Cheers for the perspective.