Guys, there is literally nothing about Steem that is an actual pyramid scheme, any more so than any other cryptocurrency (and they're not either, generally speaking with perhaps a few exceptions, even when they are premines, ICOs, and another scams). "Pyramid scheme" means a specific thing which is a structured system where later entrants pay those 'above' them on the pyramid. Nothing even remotely like that exists in Steem. There is no pyramid, no hierarchal structure of any kind, and no one pays anyone else.
The title of this thread was basically trolling and/or ignorance. If you like Steem, great, if you don't like it, that's fine too, but please let's forget about the 'pyramid scheme' nonsense already after almost 3 years. That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate criticisms, I have plenty. "Pyramid scheme" isn't one of them.
Perpetual inflation outpacing the business' profit equals an unsustainable pyramid scheme.
That's not a "pyramid scheme". It simply doesn't fit the definition (which is most certainly not "any business which is unsustainable"). A "pyramid scheme" means participants bringing in new participants below them in a hierarchy, with those higher up in the heirarchy profiting not from general growth of the population of participants, but from those structurally below them (the so-called downstream). There is no such structure in Steem; the terminology is completely misplaced.
It may be economically unsustainable, but then you will have to take that up with XMR, DOGE, ETH, and various other coins which also have perpetual inflation and no clear source of "business profit" (although to the extent that you consider coin creation a "cost", then lost coins due to various reasons might be considered a "profit" in which case it isn't clear that any of these, including STEEM, will have "costs" exceeding "profits", though they might). None of those are "pyramid schemes" either.
Incremental net inflation doesn't imply a "collapse" either, it could simply result in a slow rate of decline in the purchasing power of the token (say a fraction of a percent per year), essentially forever (it isn't like we're going to run out of numbers), which many would find perfectly acceptable, or even good.
(I only say similarities because of the asinine semantics involved with the exact definitions of terms such as ponzis or pyramid scheme)
You may call it assinie semantics but in fact it is important to explain clearly how the structure is going to fail. For example, pyramid scheme participants (except the very first) always buy in for some amount of money, and expect to profit by growing their downstream. This fails quickly because mostly because of the skim taken at the very top. For example, if 50% goes to those at the very top, then the scheme requires each level to double the number of participants below, which is obviously unsustainable.
But again, no such thing exists in Steem. That vast majority of the participants have not bought in anything at all. They don't have to recoup an investment (that they didn't make) by bringing in exponentially more participants below. People who do invest in the token face essentially the exact same economics as most other cryptocurrencies (requiring new investors to buy from them if they ever want to cash out). Over the long term, the perpetual inflation means that passive participants will on average lose a small amount (0.5% or less due to lost coins, potentially none at all) per year, which again many may find perfectly acceptable or even good. And that is assuming that the entire system doesn't continue to gain value due to economic and technological progress. In particular, 0.5% token inflation requires doubling total economic value once in 138 years for the tokens to not (slowly) lose purchasing power. It is highly questionable to assert with certainty that can't happen.
BTW, gold supply inflates by about 1-1.5% per year, has done so for thousands of years, and will likely continue to do so, perhaps for thousands more. Its value hasn't collapsed and likely won't ever collapse from that rate of inflation (although something like feasible transmutation, asteroid mining, etc. that drastically increases the rate from 1-1.5% per year might lead to a collapse). The premise that slow steady inflation of a monetary unit always implies collapse is refuted by history.
Now, if you want to talk about what is actually bad about Steem and reasons why it might not be a good investment I'm happy to do so, but they will be actual substantive reasons, not trolling about "pyramid schemes" and bizarre economic "theories" that contradict millennia of history. (I hesitate to even call them that because actual theories must have some credible grounding in reality and realistic possibility to actually be correct.)