You're raising issues we're aware of and are looking for solutions to. Of course, the fork, which included the transfer of funds from previous accounts, carried the risk that these accounts might one day become active and launch an attack on liquidity. However, you're overlooking a few interesting issues. Firstly, the amounts transferred were extremely small compared to the amounts traded on Blurt. This only shows the state of the Steem blockchain when it was forked on Hive :P This means that these funds must have also been distributed somewhere. Moreover, considering the concrete state of your ossified staff, you don't have to look far.
What happens if these people decide to withdraw from Hive? Your Richlist isn't much different from ours. It also has a rather pyramid structure. Additionally, many funds are distributed across multiple accounts, but they belong to a single person. Does Hive have the liquidity to, for example, repay such Splinterlands? In our case, these amounts are simply commensurate with the scale of the money. 10 million Blurts is currently $23,000. Any middle-income US citizen could put up that amount if they were to stretch their legs, while 10 million Hives is $1,380,000, which just anyone wouldn't be able to put up. So you see, in our case, even if the situation were extreme, the scale of the problem relative to real lifes peoples earnings is much less serious. Ultimately, people like you mention could probably, for liquidity reasons, make a deal off-exchange and simply swap with someone who can put up that amount for access. For someone like Ned, $23,000 is an amount he could easily afford to take on vacation, and just buy a pot of that size to diversify his portfolio. $1 million and 380 thousands usd is a more serious matter. Another problem you have is that the downvote system inevitably leads to capital accumulation, while a system without downvotes is more stable and prone to dispersion. You can find the mathematical proof here:
https://peakd.com/hive/@khrom/why-downvotes-contradict-decentralization-a-mathematical-perspective
This means that since the active parties on Hive were already highly centralized when the chain split, the problem is even more serious now. Besides, this isn't a theory, it's a fact, because it's obvious that the same people have been at the helm of Hive for years, and nothing has changed in that time. The balance of power on Blurt has already changed three times, even though the founders, with the help of a regent account, made sure to secure at least 30-40% of the shares at the start.
However, leaving aside considerations about the health of the blockchain itself, you're overlooking another very important issue: usability. Despite its large resources and liquidity, Hive is practically unsuitable for its intended purpose. Firstly, there are no commissions or token burn rates at any level beyond DV, which is a highly inflationary Hive token. Therefore, long-term holding of tokens on Hive is simply not worthwhile, as they slowly lose their value. This thesis is unintentionally proven here by Hallmann, who decided to observe how the value of his investment behaves over the years:
https://peakd.com/hive-134382/@hallmann/inwestycja-w-hive-po-35
As you can see, after 35 months, the value of his investment was five times lower as of the date of this writing. Now, it will probably be six or seven times lower. The Coingecko chart shows nothing different. The price of Hive has fallen by 30.8% this year, while the price of Blurt has fallen by only 15%, despite most authors selling their Blurts.
This is because, thanks to commissions and the lock-in of the DAO, Blurt is less inflationary. The level of deflation, in turn, depends on the number of users, not on how many downvotes you distribute :P
An investor would therefore be forced to hold their assets in HBD, but in this case, being pegged to the dollar price means these assets are subject to the same inflation as the dollar. Investors are looking for assets that allow them to preserve the value of their assets despite inflation. It's true that HBD offers interest, but the problem is that if you hold a stablecoin, you don't get the benefits of owning shares in the Hive network and the ability to decide various matters with your voting power. Meanwhile, simply holding assets for investment purposes, people prefer to stay in BTC, which always performs better than altcoins. Conclusion:
A useless product ;]
As a freedom platform, Hive is still useless. Downvotes are a worse and more insidious tool for demonetization than YouTube's or Facebook's algorithms. Compared to the giants' algorithms, people manage simply by avoiding certain words and phrases that the robot can't grasp. Downvotes, on the other hand, are manually managed by the stake holder, who, regardless of the level of masking of certain phrases, is able to understand the context of someone's comment and, if they dislike it, start demonetizing it. Furthermore, this often turns not so much into demonetization of a specific post as into automatic demonetization of the entire profile. Even facebook or yt demonetizing only specific posts or movies. Furthermore, it's not just demonetization that generates profits, but also the hiding of posts.
As a decentralized platform, Hive is useless, as I already linked above, demonstrating that DV accumulates capital in the hands of a group with homogeneous views and disempowers groups with different views on an unprecedented scale.
As a fundraising platform, for example, it's useless for the same reason. Because even though some members of the community might want to organize fundraisers for various causes, someone might simply start denying the entire value of the fundraiser posts.
The number of examples of why Hive is useless due to DV is endless.
Blurt, on the other hand, has enormous utility in all these aspects. However, what Blurt needs to prove this is a larger user base (I think even with half the number we have on Hive, i.e., those 4,000 active accounts), it will be visible. We won't even need more money, because that will come with an expanded user base, which will further spread the stakes, deepen liquidity, and enhance functionality. Therefore, we don't even need to convince anyone to invest; all Blurt needs are users who will come with their bare hands and populate what we have now. So they don't risk anything by doing so. This will solve all the problems you mentioned above.
Your whole attack on the investment potential is therefore pointless because this post is not about investing in blurt and none of our posts will be about it because we are looking for popularity, recognition and users, not begging for investors :P
We also don't need any specific user target, unlike you. You're looking for a specific group of users who meet your criteria; we're looking for all types of users because we know that even spammer accounts offer value. They're also potential customers for other services, such as games, investment services, or ultimately, customers who decide to buy advertising for your product. They're also consumers of other people's content. Although they try to beg for tokens by spamming, they're still people interested in the things others write about, and they're still potential curators and commentators on this content, meaning they're consumers. You are chasing such people away from here, so your users have neither feedback nor a customer pool. We don't so our feedback under the posts is much greater despite to much lower user base. so that's why our users become more loyal despite to uncertain situation.