I think this is a great write up. Those in leadership positions should take a hard look at some of these possibilities and determine if there is anything at all that can be adapted to steem/it in an attempt to strengthen the network and the stakes of existing users.
However, I do want to push back against the idea of anything going on with Steem/it being some sort of black swan. By definition, black swan events are unforeseeable and all but impossible to prevent. We may be facing a catastrophic failure of the underlying economics of Steem/it, but it has been anything but unforeseeable, unpredictable, or even surprising.
We have been brought to the point where catastrophic failure is not a remote possibility, but seemingly inevitable. But the people responsible, the people in leadership positions, will never be able to claim that they couldn't have done anything about it. It is their decisions that have brought us to this point. It is hard to argue that it could have turned out any other way, without some viral growth which was a pipe dream at best... it was never cultivated.
We can still turn this all around, but I've lost faith with the leadership. I'd love nothing more than to be proven wrong, though.
"blackswan" in my post refers to the event in Bitshares lore where a market pegged asset position isn't sufficiently collateralized anymore to maintain the peg. I agree that this is a rather liberal use of "blackswan" that departs significantly from N. Thaleb's original definition. And as you highlight, it's particularly ironic this time around because its occurrence will have been entirely predictable.