Just saying you disagree does not inform me of how my premise is flawed. Which point do you disagree with? I asked a couple questions, which you don't answer.
My premise is that Whales stand to make enormous capital gains from price appreciation in Steem, only if Steemit achieves nominal growth, which will only happen if new accounts are drawn by high quality content, and retained (and motivated) by a rewards system that doesn't create the perception that it is largely being mined for profit, and unfair.
Whales stand the most to gain from appreciation in the price of Steem, and the most to lose from the rewards system being gamed for short term profits, rather than used to drive long term growth in Steemit.
In fact, it seems to me that those investors most doing so (mining curation for SP) show that they are not confident in Steemit's long term success, and are therefore taking profits now, because they suspect capital gains won't happen. Since the code allowing financial manipulation debases content creation, and this threatens Steemit's long term success, they have reason to feel that way.
Lastly, tying the VP of whales to their holdings of SP causes them to be strongly motivated to mine curation for SP out of fiscal responsibility, and this directly replaces their curation that best supports the growth of Steemit. If they want to support Steemit in ways other than curation (and they demonstrably do, in droves) they have all the options to do so at will.
It is the link between VP and SP that ties their hands, and deprives us of their curative voices.
Please specify where I fail to understand, so that i can understand better.