There will be a dilemma: for say some content creators don't care since they are earning by selling earned Steem though Steem's price is dropping. But for investors it will look like an risky investing since they have to work extra to create more demand for Steem. If one is a FB stock buyer, he is not working to make sure FB is earning a lot. But it makes sense only for entrepreneurs to take risk to buy Steem, build on it and create demand for it.

However, the problem of Steem is too big for an entrepreneur to work on. In this case, entrepreneur can work on his SMT based frontend to earn enough from external source (e.g. Ad revenue) to make his TOKEN sustainable.

In this scenario, STINC will have the most of the responsibility to bring-in new money to Steem since they are the largest holder and seller of Steem. Though STINC has plans to cover all costs through revenue. But they have not shown any intention to buy back Steem or can generate enough profit to buyback Steem, more likely to the Binance model.

The most probable solution is to remove Steem for rewarding the content creators and put it in the hands of DApp entrepreneurs. Even STINC can launch their SMT. It will be decentralized since they can work independently on their own small projects. Or, there will be burning model for Steem similar to @steem-engine. SMT creation or continuation will require burning Steem. However, large number of SMT transactions will require to power up large number of Steem

Steem will be produced for SPS, witness reward and small PoS reward to SP holders. Demand for Steem will come from very low inflation, strong speculation (e.g. 1000s of businesses are building on Steem), RC delegations, DApp entrepreneurs who will need SP to build, small users (i.e. will require small SP to be active even in DApp).

Though it is a radical idea but probably the best solution. If Steem had no selling pressure from STINC and sellers (who earned Steem from contents or delegation), it would be easily at top 30-40 rank. Steem is still bought out by investors but are not FOMOing by seeing the ever decling price of Steem and lack of speculations the OP argued.

To create more demand for Steem due to its higher inflation, Steem by default needs better marketing which is absolutely missing from the largest holders of Steem. Some ICOs have addressed the demand and supply issue either by luck or intelligent thoughts. For example, EOS are sold by @block.one at the peaks of bull market and have war chest of billions where STINC has to sell Steem either it is bull or bear market. EOS inflation is near zero, speculation is high, investors have to buy EOS from another EOS investor. Though Steem has the best features, most usages and popularity, even better than EOS, it is a victim of supply and demand, whims of severe bear run in altcoins and wrong leaderships by early leaders.

However, Steem will reach low inflation state not soon but in a decade (1% in 2030) which is eons in crypto-universe. The solutions are to either create ninja marketing to overcome higher inflation or cease Steem for rewarding content creators (i.e. delegate that task to DApps such as @palnet, @steemleo) to lower inflation to keep up with demands.