I have NO CONFIDENCE, but our system doesn't allow for any accountability that I can think of.

Prices decline, strong hands replace weak ones, prices rise. That's accountability. Unfortunately, it happens on the market's time scale, not ours. And the "prices decline" part tends to be somewhat painful.

And to be fair, a couple points:

• Part of the reason Steemit has the biggest stake is because they took the biggest risk. They ninja-mined a huge stake of something that could have wound up being totally, completely worthless. In March of 2016, no one knew if it would have any value at all, or if they were just wasting their time and money.
• For context, the Brave browser launched in January, 2016, with the promise of using bitcoin to pay users for viewing ads. I've been using it for 3 years, and I'm still waiting for them to deliver. They have switched from bitcoin to bat (Ethereum token), changed their browsing engine once or maybe twice, and still have not delivered payouts to users. They're run by a guy with a proven track record, clearly much better funded and staffed than Steemit, and I think they're solving an easier problem, but they are also slow at delivering.
• I doubt if EOS would have been completed so quickly if Dan hadn't thrown a temper tantrum when he left to get the Steem license changed to the MIT license. He didn't start that project from scratch, and there's no telling how much work he did on it before he left Steemit.

All that is not to disagree with your larger point. From the outside, I agree that Steemit appears to be ineffective and haphazard, but I like to remember that there are also mitigating factors.

And I totally agree with your main point. If a fork attacks a stake-holder for being too big, that's a disastrous message to send to future investors.