Ironically, this is the answer to a common criticism, levied several times in the comments to that Hacker News post, that we simply "bolted on" a cryptocurrency.
Even if that were the case, surely it doesn't really matter which way round Steemit and Steem were conceived...it happened and has potential to be a success right?
Content creators have to get rewarded because valuable content is important for creating a valuable database. The economics of Steem have to be sound because no one will create valuable content, leave thoughtful comments, carefully curate content, or run a witness node if the token isn't worth anything. Everything is there for a reason. Nothing is accidental.
I agree partially to this comment. Users with a strong following are inclined to have their content surfaced quicker and easier, through friendship/follower biased as people buy into personalities perhaps more than the content itself? New authors need to work harder to be respected which I agree with but it also means gold content could potentially be missed due to that factor.
This is the weakest point I've found about Steemit - and potentially the deal breaker for newcomers. It's not a personal gripe, there's also the situation where an author complains their "great content" isn't seen or rated. Maybe they think it's great as it's personal to them, but in reality it's boring or shit for the reader. I've been writing some things on here. They mean something to me. But you guys might think it's a load of bollocks! It's subjective...