This post contains a great deal of confusion, misunderstand, and frankly nonsense.

For example (and notably presented in bold with an exclamation despite being completely wrong):

It isn't affecting SBD external market price because it isn't buying SBD from the external market!

In reality there are numerous active arbitrage bots which trade between the internal and external markets. In fact it does not matter which market is used to buy SBD, because any demand pressure added to one market will be transmitted to the others via arbitrage. As an example of how this works, a bot will, or in some cases a human could, sell SBD on the internal market to satisfy the demand from Hive account@sbdpotato, and then buy SBD on an external market to replace the SBD just sold.

Another misunderstanding is the nature of Hive account@burnpost. Hive account@burnpost does not under current conditions, take existing STEEM and destroy it, it takes newly created STEEM and destroys it instead of selling it. This does in any circumstance reduce the market cap of STEEM, it results in the market cap of STEEM being unchanged. But that's not all. Hive account@burnpost only receives 50% of its rewards in liquid STEEM. The other 50% is received as SP and is committed to eventual burning, but is only powered down slowly (25% per 13 week cycle). The effect of this is increased supply of STEEM (in the form of SP) and no potential selling pressure on markets, therefore an increased market cap and reduced debt ratio, the exact opposite of what the post claims.

In short, the author of this post has a very, very poor understanding of economics, how stable-value cryptocurrencies work (there are numerous errors in that part too, which I have chosen not to take the time to address here) and is trying to profit by writing long, elaborate posts which could be helpful if accurate, but in fact are just misleading people and causing harm. It will be for that reason that I will be downvoting these posts.

It is fair to be wrong and learn from the experience, and that is even admirable, but no one should be paid to be wrong.