Sure -- I suppose that's a totally valid, if not traditional, way to look at it.

I think though that that view ("Satisfying Investors") needs to be analyzed w/ the marketing / message (the "Panacea of the Almighty Blockchain") that people are delivering at the same time:

• Come to Steem to escape the current manipulated and corrupt financial system;
• Personal life-changing freedoms for disenfranchised peoples around the world await;
• "Earn" by blogging/sharing/gambling/whatever-ing;
• We're entering an "age of abundance";
  • Get yours now and HODL while you can so it's worth more later!!

It strikes me as trying to deliver a message of fantastical promises, while trying as hard as possible to wrangle/constrict a new idea/technology into the well-understood (and abused) little box of an "oldschool heirarchical organizational structure". All while ignoring the fact that that's kinda what people were excited to try to get away from in the first place (as far as I understand it).

Long story short:

• I definitely see your point, and I get it, despite the fact that I have no love for "investors";
• I also (obviously) don't really know wtf I'm talking about, but all of this seems like half-measures and compromises on the way towards building something new / different that could actually be useful, compelling, and "game-changing".
• I would also argue that Steem itself has a type of risk-mitigation / stake-reinforcement built into it (allocating as much of the inflation to your pile of stake as you possibly can) -- so I would suggest that most peoples analysis of the risk:reward ratio is a bit skewed.