I think this misses the larger point. Steemit posts, edits and votes are financial transactions and are occurring on the blockchain. Steemit is neither Reddit nor Bitcoin -- it's both on one blockchain. It's an adaptation of the tech that doesn't fit in a Procrustean bed.
Bitcoin remains basically unused as does Ethereum, relative to their value for sure. Tens of thousands of people, uniques, use Bitcoin every day. Those uses don't justify the price at all. It should be much lower but for network effects and speculation on future growth.
Steemit also has tens of thousands of daily users. It's valued at <5% of Bitcoin. People are actually engaging with a blockchain in a meaningful way that isn't just speculation for the first time. This is something new.
It may not work, but this is something new.
There are tradeoffs with scalability. Systems scale more easily when they're more centralized. We'll see if those tradeoffs are worth it for Steem as more people take a closer look at this project. I imagine not much decentralization is needed for this project to work, so more centralization is probably fine.
Do systems scale more easily when they are centralized? Is that consistent with economic history? Which scaled better, communism or market economies? What is a system in this case? The tech? The economy?
More broadly, what do you see as the point of decentralization, why does it matter?