I suspect that a system in which the speech of some is always, regardless of the content of that speech, going to receive higher monetary rewards is conceptually flawed at best, and reminiscent of the theory of the divine right of kings.

I am not saying that they can't have the wealth they possess. I am saying that the wealth of a speaker does not inherently impart value to the content of their speech, and that insofar as Steemit does value speech in this way, it is inherently unjust, and will drive the creation of a competitor that is inherently just.

If Steemit fails due to being outcompeted by another platform, whales will kill the golden goose to retain their wealth, and Steemit will fail. Even if no whale removes their wealth from Steemit in that case, Steemit will fail, and the whale will lose their wealth.

This latter scenario is unlikely. The former is highly likely, even certain, unless Steemit is so configured to allow users to value speech according to the inherent value they find in it, regardless of the wealth of the speaker.

Thanks for your substantive and considered response!