The former I remember. The latter is entirely plausible, but was common knowledge. I'm pretty sure Dan Larimer posted about the same thing much earlier.
In any case, my main point, more relevant to the present, is that expecting an equity/utility token to function simultaneous as a currency is a bad idea. The two functions are fundamentally in conflict.
Yes, I'm totally in agreement with that. I think it was one of the major innovations of Steem at the time that was somewhat given up on, where the default among cryptos is to try and have one token that is simultaneously equity in the system while also being day to day currency and/or store of value.