Yes I know, this bit that i've read several times, here;

> Increasing Market Demand for STEEM with SMTs and
Implicit Value Drivers rather than Fees
There are several new value drivers to STEEM with the creation of SMTs.
STEEM Purchased for Transaction Bandwidth Enables Maximally
Profitable Participation across SMTs
With the advent of SMTs, there is growing demand for users to hold STEEM, because
users need to increasingly hold STEEM in order to participate, consume, and use Steem
services at a rate maximally commensurate with their growing potentials in respective
SMT ecosystems. Put simply, as power users are growing their earning potential in SMT
communities, they need more STEEM to achieve the bandwidth allowance needed to
perform at their highest possible rate of return in SMT ecosystems. At an application
level, the demand for bandwidth may be satisfied by users or by businesses, which can
delegate surplus bandwidth to their users.
STEEM Supply is Locked into Liquidity Pools by Automated Market
Makers
Each SMT that leverages Automated Market Makers augments the ratio of demand for
STEEM to available supply of STEEM. The effect of the Automated Market Maker to
STEEM is that each Automated Market Maker represents a permanent holding pool for
STEEM, which represents a decrease in available supply. Given demand were to stay
56
equal, the price of STEEM is caused to rise with the advent of each new Automated
Market Maker.
STEEM and SMT Demand Increases with Advent of New Powers
of Influence
From a potential utility perspective, demand for STEEM increases as each SMT is created
with Influence Sharing for Steem Power over a SMT’s rewards pool. The advent of each
trace of Steem Power-based Shared Influence over an SMT’s Reward Pool gives new rights
and usage to STEEM, which in turn drives demand for STEEM. These rights can also
be granted from SMT to SMT, and the flow of value follows an identical pattern.
STEEM Demand Increases with Proliferation of SMT ICOs
At a platform level, other cause for demand may include exclusive financing opportunities,
such as ICOs, which attract new capital into ecosystems, first flowing into the base asset,
STEEM, and then flowing into SMTs. Increased capital in the ecosystem due to ICOs
always presents an opportunity for net positive capital retained in STEEM, and at worst,
a wash on the value of the base asset, where all of the STEEM is sold by the organization
making the offering. The example of the worst case scenario is that an ICO occurs and
$100 USD buys STEEM to buy the ICO’d SMT, then 100% of the STEEM received by the
ICO is sold for USD - and no explicit net effect related to the value of STEEM. However,
even when the net effect contribution of an ICO to the value of STEEM is apparently
zero, it is an implicit net benefit in terms of attention received by STEEM and the Steem
ecosystem, if we consider all new attention valuable. Further, it is reasonable to expect,
based on the behavior of ICOs in Ethereum, that the majority of the STEEM received
by the ICO’ing organization will continue to be held on a speculative or promissory basis,
therefore creating holding value.

It all seems highly speculative and does not address the potentially powerful disincentive (for holding SP) resulting from the reduction in market access (influence) to new SMT's via whale distribution lockout and whale exclusion from communities.  SP is valued for it's influence in generating additional Steem.  If that potential is diminished, the whole dynamic changes doesn't it?  Also, isn't it possible for steem whales to go "rogue" in retaliation?  Massive self-voting and posting abuse....

ICO's may turn out to be a poison chalice if regulators take a dim view.....no massive ICO capital flooding in.
 
Do you really think one page of unquestionable speculation is enough to conclusively refute all the concerns I have raised?  I reiterate, I could be wrong and you right.  All I'm saying is that this is an experiment, there are serious issues at the moment, SMT's and communities in no way conclusively deal with one of the primary issues (poor steem distribution.)  Why not do more to deal with the primary issues first, or in parallel?  Give SMT's and communities more chance to succeed.  If they fail, steem may fail because so much stock has been placed on them.