Yesterday i looked at the great steemit debate* between Tone Vays versus Jeff Berwick
* almost 17.000 views
Bottomline
If the intentions of the founders (big whales) of Steemit are ethical, good and professional they can ask them self the question: Why should i not voluntary comply what in the old normal world is usual? That means: give a complete disclosure.
If you have a stock quotation and your share in the Company is (in)direct more than 5% you have to disclose your entire (in)direct position. Also if you are unwinding your position (in case of Steemit "power down") you have to disclose that. These are the minimum rules.
From Governance prospective: if you give full disclosure (because you have nothing to hide) the stock price of your company will prosper and the stakeholders feel comfortable. Because they can do their decision making on complete actual facts; they are well informed.
Lack of transparency gives the wrong smell and a bad (sneaky) taste. Stock price will tank because investors feel not comfortable. The price of Steemit is tanking the last days. A further collapse will be a self fulfilling prophecy if the founders persist in their lack of communication and transparency of facts and intentions.
Inflation rate
Other thing is the 100% inflation rate on Steemit if you don't "power up"; with the present knowledge maybe wise to 'power down' (adjust) the inflation rate to normal levels.
KGB/Pravda point
Foundners/Whales have to much influence in the voting. The more SteemPower (SP) the more voting power. But i would limit that to a specific maximum. Normally you would like that the shares of a company are well distributed between as much as possible different shareholders. So, why not put a cap on the voting power, let say 0,5%.