LOL I do have boxes of stuff I've written and never shown anyone. I don't publish for notoriety, but to learn. The value in comments to me is criticism. I'm rarely wrong, because as soon as I find out I am, I change my mind.

I need people to tell me when I'm wrong, so that I can get right. That's a lot of why I write posts. So I am just as dependent on people as any celebrity, but, I think, for all the right reasons.

One of the greatest potentials of Steemit is to break the Celebrity model. When all the commenters receive some benefit from their comment, the community is strengthened. Concentration of wealth in one party is a failed paradigm, but it is the way of the world nonetheless, because Steemit just got here, and it isn't completely jiggered properly yet.

On the Alaskan island where I grew up, the Chief held a potluck to share out the wealth of the tribe before all the fish started stinking. Ostensibly the Chief owned all the fish, but fish aren't a very durable means of storing value, and this forces equity sharing.

Steemit can capitalize on that concept, and is. There remains a problem that does need to be addressed, though. The Chief couldn't give a brave he thought was leering at his squaw a -fish. He could give him less fish than others, or no fish, but he couldn't downvote him.

That's a change Steemit needs to make, because it's gonna cause a whole slew of problems, and preclude broad adoption in the long run.

So, not everyone seeks adulation, and celebrity is the enemy of equity. Steemit can be a cure, by promoting an more egalitarian sharing of the value of content.

This demotes the Chief, but still shares the fish.