If you let them, the Larimers and their associates will rob you blind. Dump centralized social media. Say NO to Steem!
Come join Synereo and be part of a REAL decentralized social network!
Topic: Steem pyramid scheme revealed - page 42. (Read 107058 times)
An Open Letter To The Community: In Defense Of Inequality: https://steemit.com/steemit/@xtester/an-open-letter-to-the-community-in-defense-of-inequality
I'd assume original content would be content that has been augmented in a large degree so it serves another purpose (who can rely-on/define novelty?), or that actually has expressed something that has never been expressed before (the former creative and sometimes unique, the latter genius and art--which of course has the former by necessity).
In a way, each human is a unique prism which refracts light in a different way, and thus is always able to generate original content. But in the context of the platform, the use of original content is more about avoiding ...copy/paste from others, from news sites, etc etc.
Quote
One of my main concerns is that the system is not viable in the long run due to problematic reward scaling. In other words, if userbase goes 1000x to 70mn people, the marketcap must go to 1000x (that's 200 BILLION $) to keep up the rewards at current levels.
Why rewards should remain at the same levels as today? if userbase rises 1000x why should we also have 1000x more people earning thousands and hundrends of dollars per blog? I have not done any calculations but intuitively I don't think there is any problem with that, rewards are HUGELY overpriced right now.
I don't disagree with the overpricing and part of the reason why payouts are high today is precisely because the reward pool is intended for a larger audience (as are the witness payouts - because the service provided right now is elemental from what some witnesses say).
But we have to remember payouts are high only for a very small number of authors. The others get peanuts. So the "peanuts effect" will go 1000x
I don't agree with your various statements about market cap entirely, but to the extent I do, I see this as an early adopter incentive, not very different from how mining usually works (blogging is considered a form of mining in Steem). It is often easier to mine more early on and this is by design, as an incentive to join a small network. With a larger network, less incentives are needed.
The problem is that even with the incentives offered at the level of our small-scale network (right now), most people bail. If the incentives don't work now, it is only logical to question how will they work when rewards are divided /100 or more? If the casino-effect (1/37) tends more to lottery effect (1/xxxxx), it simply won't work. I don't know - it seems clear as day to me.
How many people are actually signing up (and then bailing)?
I've seen some numbers cited from Anonymint and another guy who wrote an article and was citing anonymint - don't even remember the precise numbers but they weren't looking very good. The ratios were as far as I remember >60% and inactive accounts were a large percentage.
Quote
I still believe rather strongly that most of the signups are scammers. I believe this more strongly after looking at the account names being created.
Yeah the other day there was this ad (as a post inside steem) about one guy controlling 800 ids and growing, selling upvotes... who knows how many of them exist...
Quote
It is on my agenda to analyze the blockchain to come up with better metrics for things like people starting to blog and then quitting.
Bout time...
Quote
Most people can't blog, and never will be able to blog, and never will earn a lot under any reasonably conceivable system, but the successful bloggers who have joined don't seem to quit, and as long as they are still blogging, their readers are still reading. That may be partially a function of unsustainable early adopter rewards though.
Indeed most people won't. I'm not worried about them too much... I am more worried about those that can offer something and feel that it's not getting the attention ($$$) it should and that the system is broken or that inconsistent rewards+small payouts+non residual income (if bloggers multiply) is not worth it. We'll see how it goes... From my part I did what I had to: I proposed a system that can increase long-term viability by serving ads to non-registered members. (Registered / logged-in member experience doesn't change). I believe it'll be hard to come up with some kind of formula that is better than that. It's not a pressing issue, for sure, but it changes the market fundamentals if implemented.
Quote
One of my main concerns is that the system is not viable in the long run due to problematic reward scaling. In other words, if userbase goes 1000x to 70mn people, the marketcap must go to 1000x (that's 200 BILLION $) to keep up the rewards at current levels.
Why rewards should remain at the same levels as today? if userbase rises 1000x why should we also have 1000x more people earning thousands and hundrends of dollars per blog? I have not done any calculations but intuitively I don't think there is any problem with that, rewards are HUGELY overpriced right now.
I don't disagree with the overpricing and part of the reason why payouts are high today is precisely because the reward pool is intended for a larger audience (as are the witness payouts - because the service provided right now is elemental from what some witnesses say).
But we have to remember payouts are high only for a very small number of authors. The others get peanuts. So the "peanuts effect" will go 1000x
I don't agree with your various statements about market cap entirely, but to the extent I do, I see this as an early adopter incentive, not very different from how mining usually works (blogging is considered a form of mining in Steem). It is often easier to mine more early on and this is by design, as an incentive to join a small network. With a larger network, less incentives are needed.
The problem is that even with the incentives offered at the level of our small-scale network (right now), most people bail. If the incentives don't work now, it is only logical to question how will they work when rewards are divided /100 or more? If the casino-effect (1/37) tends more to lottery effect (1/xxxxx), it simply won't work. I don't know - it seems clear as day to me.
How many people are actually signing up (and then bailing)?
I still believe rather strongly that most of the signups are scammers. I believe this more strongly after looking at the account names being created. Steemit is paying $3 per account, but they are paying a lot more than that per actual user. That may also be a problem.
It is on my agenda to analyze the blockchain to come up with better metrics for things like people starting to blog and then quitting.
Most people can't blog, and never will be able to blog, and never will earn a lot under any reasonably conceivable system, but the successful bloggers who have joined don't seem to quit, and as long as they are still blogging, their readers are still reading. That may be partially a function of unsustainable early adopter rewards though.
http://marketingland.com/entered-post-com-era-content-marketing-174732
The days of standalone blogger web sites are coming to an end...
Only large media companies will continue to maintain content portals.
Since Steemit can't seriously compete with Medium/Facebook...
This is a great opportunity to consolidate the relatively small crypto-anarchist-gold-armageddon space...
And make deals to host any applicable material on a non-exclusive basis to provide writers with an additional revenue stream.
There are pros that do this type of marketing for a living... hire some good ones.
Also, having curated maybe 200 submissions, I would say at most 10-20% are time-sensitive...
So Steemit needs a Long Tail algo whereby a writer's library can accumulate revenue for months/years.
Quote
One of my main concerns is that the system is not viable in the long run due to problematic reward scaling. In other words, if userbase goes 1000x to 70mn people, the marketcap must go to 1000x (that's 200 BILLION $) to keep up the rewards at current levels.
Why rewards should remain at the same levels as today? if userbase rises 1000x why should we also have 1000x more people earning thousands and hundrends of dollars per blog? I have not done any calculations but intuitively I don't think there is any problem with that, rewards are HUGELY overpriced right now.
I don't disagree with the overpricing and part of the reason why payouts are high today is precisely because the reward pool is intended for a larger audience (as are the witness payouts - because the service provided right now is elemental from what some witnesses say).
But we have to remember payouts are high only for a very small number of authors. The others get peanuts. So the "peanuts effect" will go 1000x
I don't agree with your various statements about market cap entirely, but to the extent I do, I see this as an early adopter incentive, not very different from how mining usually works (blogging is considered a form of mining in Steem). It is often easier to mine more early on and this is by design, as an incentive to join a small network. With a larger network, less incentives are needed.
The problem is that even with the incentives offered at the level of our small-scale network (right now), most people bail. If the incentives don't work now, it is only logical to question how will they work when rewards are divided /100 or more? If the casino-effect (1/37) tends more to lottery effect (1/xxxxx), it simply won't work. I don't know - it seems clear as day to me.
Of those people who bail, how many are original content creators?
Even a genuine comment can be original content creation. So it's hard to quantify (and I don't even have the metrics to do so)...
Quote
Will advertisers bid for a blogger's following, perhaps buy them outright?
Will content creators create content for advertisers (this assumes advertisers establish themselves as a pressence)?
Will content creators create content for advertisers (this assumes advertisers establish themselves as a pressence)?
For the time being the assumption is no ads, so...
I'd assume original content would be content that has been augmented in a large degree so it serves another purpose (who can rely-on/define novelty?), or that actually has expressed something that has never been expressed before (the former creative and sometimes unique, the latter genius and art--which of course has the former by necessity).
When I say advertiser's presence, I mean (for the most part) something akin to a facebook page, but in steemit's case it would be a dedicated blogger/avatar--this is what I'm waiting/watching for.
Quote
One of my main concerns is that the system is not viable in the long run due to problematic reward scaling. In other words, if userbase goes 1000x to 70mn people, the marketcap must go to 1000x (that's 200 BILLION $) to keep up the rewards at current levels.
Why rewards should remain at the same levels as today? if userbase rises 1000x why should we also have 1000x more people earning thousands and hundrends of dollars per blog? I have not done any calculations but intuitively I don't think there is any problem with that, rewards are HUGELY overpriced right now.
I don't disagree with the overpricing and part of the reason why payouts are high today is precisely because the reward pool is intended for a larger audience (as are the witness payouts - because the service provided right now is elemental from what some witnesses say).
But we have to remember payouts are high only for a very small number of authors. The others get peanuts. So the "peanuts effect" will go 1000x
I don't agree with your various statements about market cap entirely, but to the extent I do, I see this as an early adopter incentive, not very different from how mining usually works (blogging is considered a form of mining in Steem). It is often easier to mine more early on and this is by design, as an incentive to join a small network. With a larger network, less incentives are needed.
The problem is that even with the incentives offered at the level of our small-scale network (right now), most people bail. If the incentives don't work now, it is only logical to question how will they work when rewards are divided /100 or more? If the casino-effect (1/37) tends more to lottery effect (1/xxxxx), it simply won't work. I don't know - it seems clear as day to me.
Of those people who bail, how many are original content creators?
Even a genuine comment can be original content creation. So it's hard to quantify (and I don't even have the metrics to do so)...
Quote
Will advertisers bid for a blogger's following, perhaps buy them outright?
Will content creators create content for advertisers (this assumes advertisers establish themselves as a pressence)?
Will content creators create content for advertisers (this assumes advertisers establish themselves as a pressence)?
For the time being the assumption is no ads, so...
Like any pyramid, it will fail at some point, and there will be again bad press about the technology.
so bad!!!
so bad!!!
Quote
One of my main concerns is that the system is not viable in the long run due to problematic reward scaling. In other words, if userbase goes 1000x to 70mn people, the marketcap must go to 1000x (that's 200 BILLION $) to keep up the rewards at current levels.
Why rewards should remain at the same levels as today? if userbase rises 1000x why should we also have 1000x more people earning thousands and hundrends of dollars per blog? I have not done any calculations but intuitively I don't think there is any problem with that, rewards are HUGELY overpriced right now.
I don't disagree with the overpricing and part of the reason why payouts are high today is precisely because the reward pool is intended for a larger audience (as are the witness payouts - because the service provided right now is elemental from what some witnesses say).
But we have to remember payouts are high only for a very small number of authors. The others get peanuts. So the "peanuts effect" will go 1000x
I don't agree with your various statements about market cap entirely, but to the extent I do, I see this as an early adopter incentive, not very different from how mining usually works (blogging is considered a form of mining in Steem). It is often easier to mine more early on and this is by design, as an incentive to join a small network. With a larger network, less incentives are needed.
The problem is that even with the incentives offered at the level of our small-scale network (right now), most people bail. If the incentives don't work now, it is only logical to question how will they work when rewards are divided /100 or more? If the casino-effect (1/37) tends more to lottery effect (1/xxxxx), it simply won't work. I don't know - it seems clear as day to me.
Of those people who bail, how many are original content creators?
Will advertisers bid for a blogger's following, perhaps buy them outright?
Will content creators create content for advertisers (this assumes advertisers establish themselves as a pressence)?
Quote
One of my main concerns is that the system is not viable in the long run due to problematic reward scaling. In other words, if userbase goes 1000x to 70mn people, the marketcap must go to 1000x (that's 200 BILLION $) to keep up the rewards at current levels.
Why rewards should remain at the same levels as today? if userbase rises 1000x why should we also have 1000x more people earning thousands and hundrends of dollars per blog? I have not done any calculations but intuitively I don't think there is any problem with that, rewards are HUGELY overpriced right now.
I don't disagree with the overpricing and part of the reason why payouts are high today is precisely because the reward pool is intended for a larger audience (as are the witness payouts - because the service provided right now is elemental from what some witnesses say).
But we have to remember payouts are high only for a very small number of authors. The others get peanuts. So the "peanuts effect" will go 1000x
I don't agree with your various statements about market cap entirely, but to the extent I do, I see this as an early adopter incentive, not very different from how mining usually works (blogging is considered a form of mining in Steem). It is often easier to mine more early on and this is by design, as an incentive to join a small network. With a larger network, less incentives are needed.
The problem is that even with the incentives offered at the level of our small-scale network (right now), most people bail. If the incentives don't work now, it is only logical to question how will they work when rewards are divided /100 or more? If the casino-effect (1/37) tends more to lottery effect (1/xxxxx), it simply won't work. I don't know - it seems clear as day to me.
Its probably a pyramid. JUST DO NOT BUY STEEM AND ONLY CASH OUT THE STEEM YOU EARN. IF YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY BUY BUT JUST USE THE PLATFORM YOU CANNOT BE BURNED. JUST THINK OF IT AS A BONUS IF YOUR ABLE TO CASH OUT SOME MONEY.
Agreed with this. If you just use the platform, get lucky and make some money then it's all good.
Investing in Steem was a terrible idea for me. It seems like the way the inflation is set up is not only to encourage users to convert whatever they have to SP, but also to take $$ from people who invest and distribute it to the users.
If you invest and just sit on Steem or Steem Power you are fucked.
I had $3.5K worth of SP a month ago... the # of SP I have in my wallet increased significantly but but my overall account value is now $1K.... LOL wtf is this? I know Steem went though a "bubble" recently, but even then the inflation is so ridiculously high that it's nearly impossible for Steem to go back to the $3-$4 range now.
The interest you get in SP is an illusion that makes you think that you are earning money/interest... but the inflation of Steem totally negates any SP earnings you get by letting your account sit. I knew there was some trick to this mechanism.
The only way I can get my $3.5K back is to earn it though posts that make a few grand... which is tough to do if you're not a hot girl or someone who's famous.
Then I have to power down and wait 104 weeks to get my full amount back. Of course, since I'm being paid back in weekly installments of Steem... by the time the 2 years pass the Steem inflation will be so high that whatever I get back in Steem will be worth peanuts. So essentially, I'm never getting the amount I power down... each payment will give you back the same # of Steem but they will be worth significantly less because of the ridiculous inflation and however the fuck "vests" work. No wonder the system is so complicated, it's starting to make sense where the money comes from
Suspiciously, this sounds like Communism.
Why have I read this just now. Is this really suppose to be in altcoin discussion? This is a revelation. Is this really true or just a hoax to bring them down?
Quote
One of my main concerns is that the system is not viable in the long run due to problematic reward scaling. In other words, if userbase goes 1000x to 70mn people, the marketcap must go to 1000x (that's 200 BILLION $) to keep up the rewards at current levels.
Why rewards should remain at the same levels as today? if userbase rises 1000x why should we also have 1000x more people earning thousands and hundrends of dollars per blog? I have not done any calculations but intuitively I don't think there is any problem with that, rewards are HUGELY overpriced right now.
I don't disagree with the overpricing and part of the reason why payouts are high today is precisely because the reward pool is intended for a larger audience (as are the witness payouts - because the service provided right now is elemental from what some witnesses say).
But we have to remember payouts are high only for a very small number of authors. The others get peanuts. So the "peanuts effect" will go 1000x
I don't agree with your various statements about market cap entirely, but to the extent I do, I see this as an early adopter incentive, not very different from how mining usually works (blogging is considered a form of mining in Steem). It is often easier to mine more early on and this is by design, as an incentive to join a small network. With a larger network, less incentives are needed.
They have flat-lined at 5,000 daily users and Stan Larimer is a top "celebrity"...
But Dan is obsessed with tweaking his broken dollar peg that no one cares about.
But Dan is obsessed with tweaking his broken dollar peg that no one cares about.
Valid points. There is other development work going on though, I wouldn't base everything on what blog posts Dan decides to put up.
Then I have to power down and wait 104 weeks to get my full amount back. Of course, since I'm being paid back in weekly installments of Steem... by the time the 2 years pass the Steem inflation will be so high that whatever I get back in Steem will be worth peanuts. So essentially, I'm never getting the amount I power down... each payment will give you back the same # of Steem but they will be worth significantly less because of the ridiculous inflation and however the fuck "vests" work. No wonder the system is so complicated, it's starting to make sense where the money comes from
You make some valid points about the investment proposition overall, and many including existing investors have said the same thing. The above is wrong though. The portion of your SP that isn't yet powered down continues to get antidillution payments. Your weekly payments actually increase in terms of STEEM every week. This largely offsets the effect of inflation. In fact your outcome will largely be determined by what happens to the market price/demand, not inflation.
Quote
One of my main concerns is that the system is not viable in the long run due to problematic reward scaling. In other words, if userbase goes 1000x to 70mn people, the marketcap must go to 1000x (that's 200 BILLION $) to keep up the rewards at current levels.
Why rewards should remain at the same levels as today? if userbase rises 1000x why should we also have 1000x more people earning thousands and hundrends of dollars per blog? I have not done any calculations but intuitively I don't think there is any problem with that, rewards are HUGELY overpriced right now.
I don't disagree with the overpricing and part of the reason why payouts are high today is precisely because the reward pool is intended for a larger audience (as are the witness payouts - because the service provided right now is elemental from what some witnesses say).
But we have to remember payouts are high only for a very small number of authors. The others get peanuts. So the "peanuts effect" will go 1000x
Quote
One of my main concerns is that the system is not viable in the long run due to problematic reward scaling. In other words, if userbase goes 1000x to 70mn people, the marketcap must go to 1000x (that's 200 BILLION $) to keep up the rewards at current levels.
Why rewards should remain at the same levels as today? if userbase rises 1000x why should we also have 1000x more people earning thousands and hundrends of dollars per blog? I have not done any calculations but intuitively I don't think there is any problem with that, rewards are HUGELY overpriced right now.
Adjustments on the economic part: https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/steem-dollar-stability-enhancements
Some are pretty radical tweaks...
Some are pretty radical tweaks...
https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/steem-dollar-stability-enhancements#@alexgr/re-dantheman-steem-dollar-stability-enhancements-20160820t180419652z
Quote from: myself
Quote from: dan
Feedback Wanted
If anyone has any concerns or has better solutions in mind please let us know.
If anyone has any concerns or has better solutions in mind please let us know.
I have some long-term stability feedback that may be useful.
One of my main concerns is that the system is not viable in the long run due to problematic reward scaling. In other words, if userbase goes 1000x to 70mn people, the marketcap must go to 1000x (that's 200 BILLION $) to keep up the rewards at current levels. If marketcap goes only 10x (up to 2bn USD) when userbase goes 1000x, the average reward will be 100 times smaller.
This is a serious issue that penalizes growth.
Now the question is how can one make a successful system when it is penalized by its own growth. The growth has to be working in the system's favor.
On top of that there is the issue of residual income that has been discussed recently where authors desire that income must continue beyond the 30 days.
Now in a scaling scenario where our userbase is 100x or 1000x, and the reward pool is already insufficient to cover daily rewards, how can one then take from that same reward pool to generate revenue for the older content? It seems impossible.
I was doing some thinking on it and I believe I have cracked the issue of both long-term viability and residual income through an ad-based scheme that breaks the closed-loop economy.
One of the main promises of steemit is that there is no advertising. This promise can be kept: For its registered members.
I believe a lot of the traffic, if not most of the traffic (pageviews), that will be generated in the future will not be by the members themselves but by external viewers who arrive to read something without being registered members. We could have 10mn members and 1bn non-members getting some kind of article to see here at one time or another. The interface for non-registered members will have ads generating revenue. This revenue will sustain both the price of the currency, the reward pool and even residual income. In fact upvotes on old content may be paid exclusively through the ad-revenue generated by ad-views from non-registered members, instead of the reward pool for the 30-day period.
In this way
a) Registered members enjoy an ad-free experience and the promise for such an experience is kept
b) Non-registered members see ads and generate ad-revenue through their millions/billions of page views, but they are also incentivized to join for free if they want to have an ad-free experience
c) Ad revenue can help reward scaling which currently seems doomed in the long-term
d) Ad revenue can help residual income-level which currently seems even more doomed in the long-term
e) The currency is supported by inflows outside the closed loop.
Adjustments on the economic part: https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/steem-dollar-stability-enhancements
Some are pretty radical tweaks...
Some are pretty radical tweaks...
They have flat-lined at 5,000 daily users and Stan Larimer is a top "celebrity"...
But Dan is obsessed with tweaking his broken dollar peg that no one cares about.
Adjustments on the economic part: https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/steem-dollar-stability-enhancements
Some are pretty radical tweaks...
Some are pretty radical tweaks...
Its probably a pyramid. JUST DO NOT BUY STEEM AND ONLY CASH OUT THE STEEM YOU EARN. IF YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY BUY BUT JUST USE THE PLATFORM YOU CANNOT BE BURNED. JUST THINK OF IT AS A BONUS IF YOUR ABLE TO CASH OUT SOME MONEY.
Agreed with this. If you just use the platform, get lucky and make some money then it's all good.
Investing in Steem was a terrible idea for me. It seems like the way the inflation is set up is not only to encourage users to convert whatever they have to SP, but also to take $$ from people who invest and distribute it to the users.
If you invest and just sit on Steem or Steem Power you are fucked.
I had $3.5K worth of SP a month ago... the # of SP I have in my wallet increased significantly but but my overall account value is now $1K.... LOL wtf is this? I know Steem went though a "bubble" recently, but even then the inflation is so ridiculously high that it's nearly impossible for Steem to go back to the $3-$4 range now.
The interest you get in SP is an illusion that makes you think that you are earning money/interest... but the inflation of Steem totally negates any SP earnings you get by letting your account sit. I knew there was some trick to this mechanism.
The only way I can get my $3.5K back is to earn it though posts that make a few grand... which is tough to do if you're not a hot girl or someone who's famous.
Then I have to power down and wait 104 weeks to get my full amount back. Of course, since I'm being paid back in weekly installments of Steem... by the time the 2 years pass the Steem inflation will be so high that whatever I get back in Steem will be worth peanuts. So essentially, I'm never getting the amount I power down... each payment will give you back the same # of Steem but they will be worth significantly less because of the ridiculous inflation and however the fuck "vests" work. No wonder the system is so complicated, it's starting to make sense where the money comes from
Treating posts as if they are only valid for 12-24 hours is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. A well written and rich post can get buried with $0.05 and then forgotten forever. Are they Facebook status/tweets or actual blog posts/serious articles?
That's only to mention the site problems. The system won't survive more than 3 or 4 months the way is currently set up, the power of the whales and early birds is too evident for any smart trader to invest in this. Sure if you are a "good" content creator or a personality you will get your share.
Many whales and people behind the project think they have something completely unique. The only unique thing are the high payouts, the rest is just a complete clone/copy from Medium, Reddit, Buzzfeed and others, even the name. The whole platform and high payouts depend exclusively on Steem price and speculators won't keep the price up forever (this downtrend will likely tend to continue indefinitely).
No one will be in Steemit if payouts are 10 cents per post. Curations rewards will be laughable so minnows are out of the equation too.
That's only to mention the site problems. The system won't survive more than 3 or 4 months the way is currently set up, the power of the whales and early birds is too evident for any smart trader to invest in this. Sure if you are a "good" content creator or a personality you will get your share.
Many whales and people behind the project think they have something completely unique. The only unique thing are the high payouts, the rest is just a complete clone/copy from Medium, Reddit, Buzzfeed and others, even the name. The whole platform and high payouts depend exclusively on Steem price and speculators won't keep the price up forever (this downtrend will likely tend to continue indefinitely).
No one will be in Steemit if payouts are 10 cents per post. Curations rewards will be laughable so minnows are out of the equation too.
Jump to: