The hypothesis is that those with the most to lose will vote in such a way as to promote content that leads to the success of the platform. However, it is but a hypothesis. Steemit is, after all, an experiment. We have witnessed both confirmation and refutation of that hypothesis.

I would consider @guerrint's contributions' success a confirmation, because she has proven to have a very smart approach to marketing herself along with the site. She leveraged YouTube and expertly promoted Steemit in a way that wouldn't be too overbearing for her target audience... As good as it gets.

However, we also have to acknowledge the posts that have snuck onto the front page with little merit. One might consider it identity theft to pose as a heroin addict by plagiarizing a professional photo set. And plenty of quality posts have languished with less than a dollar payout despite a couple dozen upvotes... Content with potentially wide appeal goes unnoticed. And of course there's the "circle jerk" side of things... Once a user reported counting 16 posts from the top before reaching one that wasn't about Steemit.

So yeah, there's an idea behind how things are set up. And some reasons to be happy with how things have gone. But there is cause for concern. It's a debate we have to continue having. Fortunately we will, because that's the nature of our experiment.