30M BP in the hands of people with skin in the game, is better than 30M BP held / controlled by people with no skin in the game. Their only skin you could argue, is another form of sweat equity in the sense that they might need to spend a few seconds going on seotools to check for plagiarism which is certainly not worth the proposed 2 lots of 100% votes from 1M BP.

Further, you are employing short time horizon thinking. There already was more than 30M Blurt in the hands of people wishing to power down. The only reason there isn't a full on exodus, is that a lot of those who powered down STEEM as a result of Justin Sun didn't get much if any BP at all.

But the biggest assumption you make which is wrong, is that there will only ever be 400M Blurt. That is wrong. The responsibility carried by stakeholders is that they have a matched say in where inflation goes to. Even if all of the BLURT in existence now were locked away and curating, there would still be the coins coming into existence from inflation to contend with, and this is the crux of the matter. Where those coins flow.

If they are reinforced by value creative productivity, then we have a positive economic feedback mechanisms. If they don't - which is basically what i'm contending - then they have negative economic feed back which is realised over time by the market valuing the token lower. Ebbs and flows aside, that remains to be seen.