I don't disagree there are issues with the model, even big ones, but that doesn't guarantee failure. The model can be changed. Other factors may turn out to me more important. The world doesn't work like, "Oh, found a flaw, it's over!"
The way I see it, all this is out in the open, no one is being misled. People can do their own analysis and reach their own conclusions.
I was adding to my prior post before you replied.
Every business is based on income - expenses = profit. What is the possible profit model of Steemit? We already showed that advertising funded can't even support paying the bloggers sufficiently, thus can't leave any profit for the investors.
People are not using Steemit because they love the site for some reason that has nothing to do with making money. They are using it because they love anything when they think they are making money doing something easy.
So where is this money going to come from to pay all the vested interests?
There is no business model here. Zilch.
You say they can maybe change to something else which is profitable. What could that be? If they knew what that was, then why they haven't mentioned it.
My guess is they want to try to get some fraction of these signups to try Peertracks. Perhaps they hope to create some relationship between artists and their fans. Last time I read about Peertracks it seemed to be talking about artists will sell shares to their fans. Fans become investors in musicians.
http://peertracks.com/They want to turn musicians into corporations with public stock offering.
Problem is that I learned that the demographic overlap between disparate activities is very poor. So if that is their plan, it will fail very miserably. Most bloggers won't be interested.
Edit: but if per jeffthebaker's post below, Steemit is really just people gaming the system, not really bloggers per se, then perhaps Peertracks will be another pumping game fit to their interests.