I think we have a lot of reason to question the Steemit organization. The stake held by the Steemit account was originally intended to be distributed with account creation as a way to help bootstrap the community. It wasn't supposed to have such a permanent centralizing impact. By switching to temporary delegation rather than permanent distribution and keeping such a large stake centralized contrary to its original purpose, Steemit invites suspicion that they've betrayed the community's trust and are no longer aligned with the interests of other stakeholders.
I hope they address this somehow, because the centralized distribution and prevalence of shortsighted abuse by large stakeholders certainly make Steem less appealing to potential users and investors. So far I've seen little evidence that those who control Steemit have much understanding of or even interest in the serious problems with the system. Every day we go with so much profitable abuse of the system gives abusive stakeholders more stake and makes them more difficult to uproot. The survival of Steem depends on the interests of its stakeholders being aligned with its long term success.
I completely agree with you. I would have preferred a permanent distribution but it has become all too clear that is never going to happen. If the majority of steemit stake is delegated for countering abuse, it would be a hard thing to ever revoke. The community wouldn't stand for it. My objective is to stop the rot asap and give steem a chance for all the good that is here. If that doesn't happen and soon, once a much improved alternative is available, I will advocate for the community to migrate to it and steem will wither. It is truly horrible to witness how much of an advantage the worst people get from abusing the system. It makes me numb when I think about the horror that central banking printing has made possible.
Hopefully the stakeholders in Steemit have (or gain) the foresight to take care of their investment, but they haven't instilled much confidence so far. I think there are a few protocol changes we'll need to get through to help align stakeholder incentives and make the network sustainable, starting with a longer vesting schedule and curation rewards for downvoting. If current large stakeholders (including Steemit) can't be convinced that change is necessary, a fork may be required to save the community. Hopefully that won't be necessary. Regardless the first step is education about the economics surrounding Steem and what it will take to keep it alive. @bethwheatcraft started the #fight4steem tag to help in that effort. I doubt Steemit is going to be a leader in this at all. They'll probably only move on it in response to community pressure.