I'm aware of network effects, but they're outside the scope of this discussion.
If curators were properly compensated for their stake and more willing to share some of it with content creators as a consequence, there might be greater network effects instead of fewer.
Would you rather have a platform with 100k content creators and no curators, or a platform with 100k curators and no content creators. Both content creators and curators would do better if there were more acknowledgement that the value belongs to the curator by default (it's their money) and the content creators need to entice the curators to reward their content.
I think it's part of the discussion.
If the value of STEEM will rise, then everybody is compensated very well for his stake! If network effects lead to a higher value of STEEM and more satisfied users contribute to that network effect, then stake holders should do their best to support a rich pool of satisfied users by distributing STEEM!
I really wonder why many big account holders are that fixated on their ROI? If the STEEM price raises significantly again, they will be unbelievable rich anyway, if it doesn't, the ROI also doesn't matter much: they have lost money anyway. I personally would agree not to earn one single more STEEM if that would guarantee a significantly higher STEEM price. Better concentrate on making the cake bigger than on getting a bigger part of a cake which is getting smaller and smaller.
(When I bought BTC I also wasn't asking how much interest I would get ...)
That's why the network effect matters for everybody.