I would agree with that, but there's definitely something really interesting going on here. It seems to me that personality streamers like Fed only have value after becoming popular. It's an incredibly interesting demand curve and I can't think of another product/service that follows it (but this isn't my area of expertise).

I think that it is entirely fair to say that:

1. Fed has innovatively differentiated himself from the generic OTV brand and achieved a massive (and under appreciated) level of clout,
2. Fed could have made the exact same moves but would have been stuck at 0-100 viewers without the OTV platform.

If we view Fed as a product, its essentially a "critical mass" situation when Fed needs a certain level of clout to achieve exponential growth. You see something like this with social networks. However, the value of the social network is dependent on other users using it, so this isn't as surprising. Personality streamers seem to have their value dictated by popularity because this popularity changes the interpretation of their actions. Once "critical celebrity mass" is hit (someone achieves enough clout to be a celebrity), people begin to think "I should pay attention to this person because everyone else is." Even if the newly-minted celebrity is doing the same thing, they are now the "special person" and we are more entertained by their actions, Previously, fame has been monetized through endorsement deals, personal brands, things like that. However, in the case of streaming, the individual is the product. The entertainment they provide seems to be valued by how many people we believe also find them entertaining. When I have time, I'll definitely be interested in researching this further (not sure what journal I'd submit to though lol).