Also, larger groups degenerate more easily into what the initial smaller group didn't congregate for; it is easier for a few individuals to concentrate money and power, because the process goes unnoticed or with the approval of sycophants and, once the accumulation has taken place, there is no recourse against it when the differences are large enough.

This would make any anarcho-capitalist group decidedly less anarcho, or any socialist group more Leninist, etc. Things would go from a like-minded group to a larger group with some power-hungry or greedy people in it to a group with an unwanted power structure.

When it is too late, rules don't work anymore because we all know who makes those when a firm power structure is in place. In the real world you could have a revolution, but physical violence doesn't provide power on-line. On-line only an enforcable group rule set could prevent such degeneration. If that can't be made to work, the only option would be to split off a smaller group and start afresh.

I'm afraid this would happen over and over again, and also create a miriad of tokens/currencies that have no wide appeal, not exactly something I am hoping for.

I think Steemit has a rule set designed in that actually enhances degradation into something most people don't want it to be, but which "works as intended" as far as Steemit, Inc. is concerned. This, together with the points you brought forward in your last postings, is why Steemit is in full decline "both socially and economically".