I don't compare the situation to just what's happening in crypto, but what happens at most tech companies. As I'm sure you know having worked in tech startups yourself, payments that comes as stock in the company require vesting. The idea is to get the company to a stable position before there is downward pressure on the stock by employees selling large stake they are given. I think there is a wisdom to that that made it the industry norm.

Now granted, they only had the option of offering stock, not coins, so it is a little different. I don't think it's different enough though for that time tested experience to be ignored. And in fact, many crypto projects do duplicate that. The question is also for how long, which it can be argued that at roughly 3 years, all initial vesting would be done already anyway. But some vesting schedule are tiered over more like 10 years, and often 5.

I don't think it is the short-term investing view that sees the problem in these token dynamics. Quite the contrary. It is the long-term that brings the problems. In the short term investors are powered up. But there doesn't wind up being a long-term at all if everything is paid for by selling coins and the way it's being done leads to the coin price continuing to fall until it can no longer support essential expenses.

I don't know what effect more rapidly distributing that 55 million STEEM would have, but I can't image it would be good given that the current rate is already problematic. You mention the price going up even with the blockchain is having problems, but what I've noticed is the price going down faster than other coins. What I've noticed is the rank slipping and slipping and in danger of falling out of the top 50. All those other coins have also faced the same bear market, but we are losing relative position to them. I believe it is because there is an extra downward pressure on the price that is completely linked to such large amounts being distributed without any vesting schedule.

Now of course, there is a need for more community involvement, particularly by coders, to take over some of the responsibilities staff were fulfilling. But apart from their payment, I wonder how that would work given what you've already said about their communication, code commenting, and responsiveness. If they were like that with more staff, how will they be with staff stretched even thinner?

I am certainly hoping for the best here, but I can't say I'm feeling all that optimistic at this junction. I'm not seeing a clear path forward, other than whoever owns equity in the company being wiling to sell some to use THAT to cover operating expenses instead of selling STEEM to. And maybe then, with staff completely paid with fiat, it wouldn't be a problem to use STEEM payments for all the community programmers who volunteer to help. I just don't see increasing the rate of STEEM being paid out as being the answer when the low price of STEEM is what he said has precipitated the problem.