Dilution alone would just cause the price of STEEM to decrease over time and the new users wouldn't have much value in their votes.

That's true, but like any good company we should ensure that our product is valuable so that people want to buy it, rather than ask people to buy because we need them to so that we stay in business.

I think we've had quite a few "Hey, come earn FREE MONIEZ!!!" influencers here which, IMO, set a false expectation for how the economics here actually work. Thankfully, @davidpakman's pitch here was very reasonable.

Agreed.

we still need 20% in the investor class to keep the party going.

For now yes. My hope is that in the long run utilitarian demand for the token will be enough that the system will be sustained even if few people buy Steem as an investment. In the old dynamic with hyperinflationary liquid Steem, it was required that Steem Power sustain the whole economy. In the current system where Steem can be a commodity of exchange, it's possible that demand for money rather than demand for ROI or for influence could sustain the system. For example if only 20% or less of total Steem was vested, with most being tied up in commerce.

That's why I'm more concerned with users than investors. If we have the largest network effect, we will be the best form of money in the crypto space. We're already far more usable for money than Bitcoin is, and we're growing fastest in places where demand for sound money is high (Venezuela and Nigeria, both countries which recently experienced hyperinflation).