That is mostly inapplicable to my point, except that a lack of speculation liquidity can also remove a reason to invest for 1 year while it is only a low. Typically altcoins collapse to a long valley low for a year or so, and then after bottom fishing accumulation they get a pump. But since you can't cash out on a pump, this is entirely impossible for Steem. See edicts can't do just one thing. There is a confluence of negative effects. Clearly you now understand you are incorrect on this.
It is also entirely irrelevant if you read what I wrote which is that you would invest for >1-2 years if you believe the platform to actually have potential to succeed. Not to play a pump after a year of bottom fishing accumulation. As a candidate for a pump, it is a poor investment, but that doesn't necessarily make it a poor investment unconditionally, if it actually works (big if).
You can't cite anecdotes to prove aggregate effects. If you want a competing anecdote then refer to the Steemit blog where that multimillionaire anti-virus software personality John McAfee said he invests in blockchains but not Steemit because there isn't enough liquidity.
Well I can tell you from my personal experience as like the 10th largest stakeholder or so, that whenever I've powered down I've had NO problem selling the coins (tens of thousands) at close to the market price. The liquidity is perfectly sufficient. This has been true at every price level, before during and after the big July pump.
I think some people might confuse this because the trading volume and standing orders are relatively small, but this ignores the fact that demand for liquidity is also low (since people can't be selling too many coins at one time). So it just balances out, with a smaller market volume.
I think what McAfee didn't like is that he wouldn't be
allowed to sell (similar to your point about not being able to exit on a pump), but it is hard to say. Possibly he just looked at the exchange volume saw a low number and dismissed it based on that.