Before implementing linear reward Steemit Inc was against it, saying it would equal to giving away free money, leading to undesirable results. The exact quote:
In a world with honest people who don't vote on themselves to get "free money for nothing", a simple linear curve, aka n would produce a 1 share 1 vote proportional payout. This is the blue line and shows the ideal situation.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where people will attempt to game the system by voting for themselves. If everyone voted for themselves then the result would be simple interest payments and have no economic impact.
(source)
The current design, linear reward, leaking away free money forever, explicitly to those who don't engage in proof-of-brain is less desirable than superlinear reward which prevented such leak.
To put it more succinctly, investors set the price of Steem in fiat/btc/eth. Investors want to increase their wealth.
If investing in Steem and voting for themselves all the time is the best investment, they will do it.
The selfless investors want to incite cooperation and will avoid participating in a system unfairly favoring the selfish.
Obviously, the rationale behind selfish behavior will push Steem votes ever closer to simple interest payments on SP.
Last month 
- 5 months ago
explained for the last time why the current system didn't make sense. (link)
Some of the conversations I had with prominent members of Steem in regard to Steem's economics incentives and more precisely the reward curve.
(6 months ago, 5 months ago, 3 months ago)
and
(1 month ago)
(1 month ago)
(1 month ago)
and
(this week)
Linear could be proven to be a better system than n2 but so far, no such proof exist. Proof that n2 is preferable to linear exist and have never been disproven.
My intentions are humble and just like every other Steemians I'm looking to better Steem.
RE: Time To Wake Up and Fix Steem's Voting Problem