You were lied to by your own impression?
Before you make predictions such as "steem is going to fail" which are backed up by arguments like "it's worth can't even be sustained if there is no cap" I want to know exactly the logic that follows that no limit means it's worth can't ever (right now?) be sustained?

from the white paper:

>Impact of Token Creation Rate
At first glance, 100% annual increase in the STEEM supply may appear to be hyper-inflationary and unsustainable. Those who follow the Quantity Theory of Money (16) may even conclude that the value of STEEM must fall by approximately 5.6% per month. We know from countless real-world examples that the quantity of money does not have a direct and immediate impact on its value, though it certainly plays a role. Because 90% of all STEEM created is distributed back to holders of SP, the result is similar to having a 2:1 “split” every year rather true inflation. The total rate of expenditures used to reward contributors is about 10% of the market capitalization per year, a rate well below what Bitcoin sustained for the first 7 years after it launched.

..
>From August 2008 through January 2009 the U.S. money supply(17) grew from $871B to $1,737B, a rate of over 100% per year and then continued to grow at about 20% per year for the next 6 years. All told the money supply in the U.S. has grown by 4.59x over less than 7 years. During that same time, the value of the dollar relative to goods and services has fallen less than 10% according to the government's price index (18). This real-world example demonstrates that supply is only one component of price. The price of a digital commodity, like STEEM, is driven by both supply and demand. If new STEEM is allocated to those who are holding long-term then the increase in supply is offset by the corresponding demand to hold. The impact of this change in supply is postponed until a future date when the long-term holder decides to sell. The sell pressure is then distributed over 2 years.