Ideally, none of what I describe will happen, because it won't be necessary.

I agree that steemit is pretty great, and I've found my short time here to be very intellectually rewarding. But I don't really need the money I could earn from here. So while I might be cranky about what ends up trending, when even the worst of my students could write something more coherent in their sleep, I am never going to be out on the street if my posts don't get enough upvotes.

This is not the case for all steemians, and as more people join, this will be increasingly true. Paying rent so that you are not homeless is not voluntary. Buying food so that you do not starve is not voluntary. Earning money so that you can supply your children with the necessities of life is not voluntary. Does redistribution remove some of the duress and coercion from such 'voluntary' transactions? You're damn right it does!

I know you are OK with voluntary associations that do not redistribute earnings. I would characterise this as a difference of degree, rather than type. Anyway, if the conditions on steemit are favourable enough, then people will not form such associations. But if the reward is too low for the work people put in, such groups are inevitable. That, or people will leave.

You do not see a problem. I respectfully submit that not everyone agrees with this assessment.

You are probably correct about the 100 people and their votes - if they have sufficient SP at least. But, the spectre of less-wealthy people undertaking collective action and not simply doing as they are told does tend to produce a more pronounced reaction in my experience.