Topic: Steem pyramid scheme revealed - page 43. (Read 107058 times)
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.
Steem is nothing more than a pump and dump. For those fools who bought it I feel bad. If you simply made Steem on steemit then little lost.
Berniesanders noticed one of my poems, so you can get the attention of a whale without first knowing them or bringing a following previously established or being part of the whale up-vote train.
https://steemit.com/poetry/@generalizethis/icarus-1-original-epic-poem
https://steemit.com/poetry/@generalizethis/icarus-1-original-epic-poem
Jeff is milking this circle-jerk:
Fools lying to themselves:
That is not necessarily true. If investment demand dried up, it is possible you wouldn't be able to sell for anything worth more than your miniscule cost of time+effort in selling.
An astute minnow (and the youth are not going to like paid blogging because it isn't easy and immediate):
Schooling @smooth on the contextual aspect of marketing:
Jeff builds a strawman argument by only focusing on the perspective blogging authors. If you want to argue that Steem is a scam, you start by stipulating that it is scam for investors, not for blog authors. And then you make an argument about how it was 80 - 90% sneaky "pre"-mined by a few guys who can now cash out 1% per week and/or dominate the curation rewards, while investors have to lock up their investment for 2 years. Does that make it a scam? Decide for yourself.
With one promoter with a microscopic anarchist audience dominating the blog rewards nearly every day, Steem is looking more and more like a community of backslapping and not real diversity.
With one promoter with a microscopic anarchist audience dominating the blog rewards nearly every day, Steem is looking more and more like a community of backslapping and not real diversity.
Fools lying to themselves:
Quote from: @quinneaker
So even if all of the sudden the big players were to start to cash out everything and the value of steel began to drop you could still cash out a nice chunk of change (obviously not all) of which cost nothing to begin with.
That is not necessarily true. If investment demand dried up, it is possible you wouldn't be able to sell for anything worth more than your miniscule cost of time+effort in selling.
An astute minnow (and the youth are not going to like paid blogging because it isn't easy and immediate):
I enjoyed both sides of this debate. Something I found today needs to be considered. Stats (today) have 68,624 user accounts. Of those 22,287 have at least 1 post (comments count as a post too). Accounts with more than 10 followers is 2,223. I have been here 1 week, I have provided content 20 times, commented, read tons of material, voted, I have worked it and developed 31 followers. My son made a few blogs and left but got 10 followers. I am a minnow, my vote is worthless. My followers are minnows, worthless. You, dollarvigilante have 1850 followers and are now likely a whale. Unless content is noticed by whales, and more than 1, thats like having your story page in a stack piled 2000 pages high. Will anyone read it? I am having a hard time imagining that 3 or 4 whales might stumble upon my page. So I am wondering what is the purpose of the minnow? As 5-10 thousand new people come thru and then in turn leave, are the minnows purpose to make all this appear legit. I WANT TO BE WRONG. Jeff, any thoughts?
Schooling @smooth on the contextual aspect of marketing:
Unfortunately it doesn't offer the masses anything they want. The masses aren't that interested in reading blogs out-of-context. They read blogs in the context of that author being important to them in some content, e.g. as author of the s/w they are using or the music they are listening to. And they don't really care if the author is getting paid, unless they've developed that close contextual relationship. And often that context is already paying the author (which can mean no advertising as well).
Yes I don't see how it can scale. The only flaw I can find in my argument is that "userbase" is not necessarily the same as "authors", so if you have 50k users and 50mn users it doesn't mean the paid authors go up x1000. They could be "scaling" in a non-linear fashion compared to "ordinary readers" (kind of like the numbers from medium.com). Of course the avg income per user is still going down.
Well I thought of that also. Medium has 20,000 unique weekly blog authors serving 25 million unique monthly readers, so roughly a ratio of 1000. At $100 per reader valuation, that is ~$10,000 a year per blog author which isn't really enough unless the best bloggers get paid more than that and the mediocre ones less than that.
But Medium was recently valued at $400 - $600 million only by a round of financing. So that is only $16 - $20 per reader valuation. So that reduces the reward to $1600 - $2000 per blog author per year.
Facebook's mcap is significantly higher at ~$300 per user, but Facebook users are highly engaged and are publishing and interacting with content, e.g. photos, sharing posts, etc.. Problem is that you are only paying for blogging and not the rest of activities that would motivate users to do all those things on Steem instead of on Facebook.
Blogging is too one dimensional of an activity to go after the masses. So if the onboarding model is paying blog authors and that is the main incentive to join, then I just can't see how it can cross the chasm and finance even a run to Medium's level.
I thought through all of this.
Edit:
STEEM is just a coin with a marketing budget controlled by the owners, that's all.
The main problem is that the entire point is to distribute the currency to as many people as possible who would engage in commerce with the token, because that is the only future that will make the token valuable.
But with the concentration of the blogging rewards into a few 1000s of authors wallets, the remaining 93% have not been brought into the platform and quit. Even if they continue on only as readers, they haven't been onboarded with tokens.
Yes I don't see how it can scale. The only flaw I can find in my argument is that "userbase" is not necessarily the same as "authors", so if you have 50k users and 50mn users it doesn't mean the paid authors go up x1000. They could be "scaling" in a non-linear fashion compared to "ordinary readers" (kind of like the numbers from medium.com). Of course the avg income per user is still going down.
I'm not saying to spread them evenly, but if you cap the high rewards, suddenly there's much more rewards that can go to the lower strata.
A 10.000$ post could be paying 100 authors x 100$ or 1000 authors x10$. So....
A 10.000$ post could be paying 100 authors x 100$ or 1000 authors x10$. So....
Okay but you will not be able to pay more than about 10% of the users anything meaningful unless the debasement rate is increased to 1000% yearly, at least in the current structure where every 10% of rewards produces 90% more dilution paid to SP holders.
So you still won't have an activity that most users can participate in.
I showed the math before. With social networks valued about $100 per user, then with 10% reward per year, that is $10 per user per year. If you pay 10% of the users, that is $100 per year.
Since Steem is currently valued at about $40000 per active user or $4000 per signup, it can pay more, but as you've noted, this overvaluation is unlikely to scale.
I'm not saying to spread them evenly, but if you cap the high rewards, suddenly there's much more rewards that can go to the lower strata.
A 10.000$ post could be paying 100 authors x 100$ or 1000 authors x10$. So....
A 10.000$ post could be paying 100 authors x 100$ or 1000 authors x10$. So....
I was thinking about the capping of rewards on posts, to make more "room" for smaller posts to get something from the reward pool...
In theory this is fixable by curation (whale downvoting reducing payouts to sane levels)...
In theory this is fixable by curation (whale downvoting reducing payouts to sane levels)...
...
But the problem is if we successfully spread the rewards out, then authors won't hardly be earning anything. Then why would 20,000 bloggers switch from Medium, and even Facebook and other more powerful competitors are adding blogging features. The voting paradigm is inherently dysfunctional and I am intending to do something about this soon.
I was thinking about the capping of rewards on posts, to make more "room" for smaller posts to get something from the reward pool and stop the useless piling of whales. I think it was Dan writing that the first whale gets something like 80% so whales don't have the same incentive to upvote when there's already some heavy upvoting beforehand, yet the piling up continues up to the thousands.
In theory this is fixable by curation (whale downvoting reducing payouts to sane levels), but in practice it is problematic (reputation, less incentives for downvoting compared to upvoting and getting curation rewards etc).
Now caps are a bit communistic, so I was thinking alternatives.
At some point I had an idea which is similar to how the local court system operates in regards to claims for damages. The courts here require a deposit of 0.8% IIRC for any claim. Like if I want a million in damages, I have to pay something like 8000 euro which I lose no matter what. So if you go too greedy you lose some money.
To avoid this, the courts allow the possibility of you asking the court what is an appropriate level that you should be asking for - and then you can adjust accordingly for the lawsuit that you'll be making (but you lose plenty of time in the process) and pay the corresponding 0.8% of that amount... so your chances are increased.
In any case, I was thinking about a similar system where if you go too greedy you lose something and if you are more humble, you gain.
Author writes a post and then self-determines what they are aiming at (max reward) in terms of rewards.
If they are aiming at 10.000+, they get a multiplier of 0.35x on their earnings. So if they really hit 10.000, they get 3.500. But if they hit 100.000, they keep 35.000. It might sound a ripoff but if there were caps involved at, say, 1000 or 5000, then that money would be lost anyway. This is a cap-alternative system - remember.
If they are aiming at 5000-9999, they get a multiplier of 0.5x on their earnings
If they are aiming at 1000-4999, they get a multipler of 0.6x on their earnings
If they are aiming at 500-999, they get a multiplier of 0.75x on their earnings
If they are aiming at 200-499, they get a multiplier of 0.85x on their earnings
If they are aiming up to 199.999, they get a multiplier of 1x on their earnings
The range acts as a self-imposed cap. The incentive to impose it on yourself is an increase on your own multiplier. The lower cap you use, the higher the multiplier you are getting.
So if you declare a post in the 500-999 category, and you get upvotes for 1500$, you are still at 999 max - you don't get to make more because that's your desired maximum. (To hit 999 you'd need 999/0.75 = 1332$ worth of upvotes.)
In a way you have created a mechanism where users try to "self-penalize" themselves the least possible while also aiming to what they consider realistic. This could also be "rebranded" with a positive spin (multipliers bigger than 1 so that instead of appearing negative, it appears positive and users try to "self-reward" themselves for not being greedy) but you get the idea.
Do you think that something like that can work and if no, why?
In theory this is fixable by curation (whale downvoting reducing payouts to sane levels), but in practice it is problematic (reputation, less incentives for downvoting compared to upvoting and getting curation rewards etc).
Now caps are a bit communistic, so I was thinking alternatives.
At some point I had an idea which is similar to how the local court system operates in regards to claims for damages. The courts here require a deposit of 0.8% IIRC for any claim. Like if I want a million in damages, I have to pay something like 8000 euro which I lose no matter what. So if you go too greedy you lose some money.
To avoid this, the courts allow the possibility of you asking the court what is an appropriate level that you should be asking for - and then you can adjust accordingly for the lawsuit that you'll be making (but you lose plenty of time in the process) and pay the corresponding 0.8% of that amount... so your chances are increased.
In any case, I was thinking about a similar system where if you go too greedy you lose something and if you are more humble, you gain.
Author writes a post and then self-determines what they are aiming at (max reward) in terms of rewards.
If they are aiming at 10.000+, they get a multiplier of 0.35x on their earnings. So if they really hit 10.000, they get 3.500. But if they hit 100.000, they keep 35.000. It might sound a ripoff but if there were caps involved at, say, 1000 or 5000, then that money would be lost anyway. This is a cap-alternative system - remember.
If they are aiming at 5000-9999, they get a multiplier of 0.5x on their earnings
If they are aiming at 1000-4999, they get a multipler of 0.6x on their earnings
If they are aiming at 500-999, they get a multiplier of 0.75x on their earnings
If they are aiming at 200-499, they get a multiplier of 0.85x on their earnings
If they are aiming up to 199.999, they get a multiplier of 1x on their earnings
The range acts as a self-imposed cap. The incentive to impose it on yourself is an increase on your own multiplier. The lower cap you use, the higher the multiplier you are getting.
So if you declare a post in the 500-999 category, and you get upvotes for 1500$, you are still at 999 max - you don't get to make more because that's your desired maximum. (To hit 999 you'd need 999/0.75 = 1332$ worth of upvotes.)
In a way you have created a mechanism where users try to "self-penalize" themselves the least possible while also aiming to what they consider realistic. This could also be "rebranded" with a positive spin (multipliers bigger than 1 so that instead of appearing negative, it appears positive and users try to "self-reward" themselves for not being greedy) but you get the idea.
Do you think that something like that can work and if no, why?
Quote from: @innuendo
In those comments you offer quite an interesting opinion - which I think deserves to be turned into a separate post.
Ty. I will blog post again when I have something to offer as solution. Not to just make more complaints.
Quote from: @innuendo
What makes you think that, as time goes by, the whales will not diversify and start specializing in different areas?
1. Because they are all cryptonerds.
2. They are all (now due to Steem) rich with presumably masters and PhD education, so they won't identify with the interests of the masses.
3. They don't have time to be engrossed in "1000 points of light" content cultivation. They can't get down in close to niches the way individual bloggers could. For example, travel isn't just one niche, but dozens or 100s of niches.
4. Knowledge creation is like spontaneous combustion. It can't be top-down managed. It is a grass roots, bottom up activity. I wrote about this some years ago and we were discussing it at Bitcointalk in depth over these years.
5. Static content is not the value of the social network. The value is in the network connections and the dynamic interaction between the blogger and sub-community. A whale is an outsider to this interactive grass roots process. The whale can't even see all the information because it is happening in real-time ongoing. I refer you also to this blog on the fact that Steem doesn't understand the content must be alive.
I just encountered a game-theory-twist from the contributor point of view: If my post is considered garbage = I'm deleting it.
https://steemit.com/self-curation/@blockcodes/5zspes-content-with-no-value-will-be-removed
Mind blown at the implications...
https://steemit.com/self-curation/@blockcodes/5zspes-content-with-no-value-will-be-removed
Mind blown at the implications...
Nobody cares. Let him do that in his own microscopic vacuum.
But this doesn't affect one person. Behaviors can be replicated and even become viral.
Nobody cares, so it can't go viral.
Another major flaw in Steem:
I agree!
There seems to be a resource issue with how the graphene blockchain operates? Bloat, ram issues are cited in the github conversation for eliminating anything post-30-days and focusing on twitter-izing it to clickbait short-lived content.Quote from: @ markrmorrisjr
Does Steemit want to be the Buzzfeed of the Blockchain world, because without residual payouts, that's exactly what will happen!
The way I see it, the potential for this as a content publishing platform is extremely limited if it's one or two payouts and done.
The way I see it, the potential for this as a content publishing platform is extremely limited if it's one or two payouts and done.
I agree!
I think this could be fixable by optimizing the software (I've seen some screenshots from a witness I think with ...6.5gb use on a ~2gb blockchain which is absurd - you can't require 3 times the whole size of the blockchain).
But what would be really problematic is the scaling of rewards. To keep rewards same: 100x userbase (7mn) needs 100x marketcap (20bn marketcap) and 1000x userbase needs 1000x marketcap. Now if a lot of these rewards go to old content (which I'm in favor of, btw), the problem of paying new content is worsened. A lot. Because then the pool of rewards for new content goes down significantly. Actually, the more content there is in the past, the lower the potential slice for rewards for new content, unless this is managed by an algorithm which says, only 10-30% of payouts go to old content, 70-90% goes to new.
You are starting to understand what I meant upthread when I said I don't think Graphene can scale, and that their decision for interactivity with WebSockets instead of prioritizing cached content chunks also impact scaling.
Let this be a lesson to @generalizethis, that when I say something has issues and is not yet a slamdunk, it is wise to remember that I do know a fair amount about software development and marketing. It doesn't mean I won't make mistakes (and especially the case that I will make mistakes when I get this fucking brainfog headache enjoined by stomach pain, chronic fatigue aka sleepiness but inability to sleep and numbness of my limbs from my illness)
I just encountered a game-theory-twist from the contributor point of view: If my post is considered garbage = I'm deleting it.
https://steemit.com/self-curation/@blockcodes/5zspes-content-with-no-value-will-be-removed
Mind blown at the implications...
https://steemit.com/self-curation/@blockcodes/5zspes-content-with-no-value-will-be-removed
Mind blown at the implications...
Nobody cares. Let him do that in his own microscopic vacuum.
But this doesn't affect one person. Behaviors can be replicated and even become viral.
Another major flaw in Steem:
I agree!
There seems to be a resource issue with how the graphene blockchain operates? Bloat, ram issues are cited in the github conversation for eliminating anything post-30-days and focusing on twitter-izing it to clickbait short-lived content.Quote from: @ markrmorrisjr
Does Steemit want to be the Buzzfeed of the Blockchain world, because without residual payouts, that's exactly what will happen!
The way I see it, the potential for this as a content publishing platform is extremely limited if it's one or two payouts and done.
The way I see it, the potential for this as a content publishing platform is extremely limited if it's one or two payouts and done.
I agree!
I think this could be fixable by optimizing the software (I've seen some screenshots from a witness I think with ...6.5gb use on a ~2gb blockchain which is absurd - you can't require 3 times the whole size of the blockchain).
But what would be really problematic is the scaling of rewards. To keep rewards same: 100x userbase (7mn) needs 100x marketcap (20bn marketcap) and 1000x userbase needs 1000x marketcap. Now if a lot of these rewards go to old content (which I'm in favor of, btw), the problem of paying new content is worsened. A lot. Because then the pool of rewards for new content goes down significantly. Actually, the more content there is in the past, the lower the potential slice for rewards for new content, unless this is managed by an algorithm which says, only 10-30% of payouts go to old content, 70-90% goes to new.
Another major flaw in Steem:
I agree!
Btw, another major flaw is there is no choice to make a self-moderated blog:
Quote from: @ markrmorrisjr
Does Steemit want to be the Buzzfeed of the Blockchain world, because without residual payouts, that's exactly what will happen!
The way I see it, the potential for this as a content publishing platform is extremely limited if it's one or two payouts and done.
The way I see it, the potential for this as a content publishing platform is extremely limited if it's one or two payouts and done.
I agree!
Btw, another major flaw is there is no choice to make a self-moderated blog:
It is important to have the power to block trolls from some field of view, so there is a symmetrical power balance, which also empowers ignoring them versus feeding them by engaging them. However, it shouldn't be possible globally block a troll from everyone's view, as that is censorship.
Quote
https://steemit.com/bots/@ygglas/upvote-follow-flags-per-0-01usd-accs-contract-price
Upvote / follow / flags / per 0.01$ , accs: contract price
1 hour ago by ygglas25
Upvote / follow / flags / accs steem market
https://steemit.com/@steemitmarket
anonymously
start price :
0.01$ per upvote and/or follow
0.01$ per flag
payment after work.
accounts: contract price.
now we have 800 bots with 3 SP , every day increases
Contacts:
telegram: @steemitmarket
skype: live:622390a9ed79e86f
facebook: https://facebook.com/steemitmarket
Upvote / follow / flags / per 0.01$ , accs: contract price
1 hour ago by ygglas25
Upvote / follow / flags / accs steem market
https://steemit.com/@steemitmarket
anonymously
start price :
0.01$ per upvote and/or follow
0.01$ per flag
payment after work.
accounts: contract price.
now we have 800 bots with 3 SP , every day increases
Contacts:
telegram: @steemitmarket
skype: live:622390a9ed79e86f
facebook: https://facebook.com/steemitmarket
LOOOOL
This arrives me to a question of will those people gaming the system massively make Steem tokens more in demand because of it? The more and more people use these services meaning the more and more people will want to hold it. It will then after make the demand for the Steem tokens higher than before. Is this a rational assessment?
I think we need Ip restrctions
I didn't want to mislead @kaylinart:
It is very wise to pay off all debt before investing in a speculative blockchain project, especially one that locks up your money for 1 year average holding period.
I should make some disclosures so that you will be able to weigh my opinion with an understanding of my biases. If you had followed my links to Bitcointalk.org discussion, and had read many of iamnotback's (my) posts there, you would come to realize that I am intending to create a competitor to Steem, that will have some significant differences.
The problem I see with Steem's voting paradigm is that it motivates producing content which appeals site-wide, instead of to a coterie of like-minded followers. But site-wide focused content is a groupthink, meaning I think Steem will struggle to be relevant to wider diversity of audiences.
Also blogging is not something most people can do well, so why will millions of others join if the only they can read of the "we are change" (self-help, libertarian principles, anarchy proponents, why steemians are awesome, etc) groupthink blogs. The stats show that 93% of signups don't even earn $10 on Steem(it), so why would they bother to stay here. On Medium there are 20,000 people who blog weekly, and 25 million unique monthly blog readers. On Steem(it), we appear to have about 1500 serious bloggers active in the past week who've earned at least $100s. I doubt that Steemit has 2 million unique monthly readers (which is another reason to think Steemit's Alexa rank is not correct or manipulated as it estimates 6.5 million monthly readers).
But more importantly, I don't see why those serious Medium bloggers would switch to Steem(it), when they can't earn anything because their content doesn't appeal to the "we are change" mindset of the Steem groupthink.
And without growth, the monetary system of Steem will implode as it would then just be all of us extracting from the collective debasement of the money supply without any widespread viral growth to show for it, that would drive investment.
I have what I think is a better design, which solves these dilemmas. I think voting is a dysfunctional paradigm for numerous reasons. We shouldn't even be bothered with trying to discern what a vote should mean, as for example how you used downvoting as a weapon against @nameles who you felt was bad for the site. I understand the frustration with trolls and also the desire to protect the site, but that ends up as a war of attrition and no one wins if we all bind ourselves together in one groupthink and fight over who has control. Instead the solution is decentralization of groupings, so our like-minded groupings have localized control, not site-wide.
Also I think the Steem(it) name sucks. It doesn't speak to what a site like this really does and should be about, in terms of being a store of content for content producers.
I am not powering up because I must lock up my investment for 2 years (1 year weighted average price to power down). And in crypto s/w world, everything can change in a one month. The design I am contemplating, won't force anyone to power up in order to invest. Steem's design dilutes (liquid not powered up) STEEM at 50% yearly, thus it is not very attractive for medium-term speculation.
There are numerous flaws I see in Steem, although I think it has been an important experiment and I congratulate the creators on their initial success.
As in all things, best to diversify to hedge our bets. I continue to support Steem(it) and want to see where it can go, while I am also working on a competing design, so we all have options. Competition is what drives improvement.
Edit: my key point is that the groupthink of voting will discourage diversification of content and readership and thus limit Steem's upside adoption. So far, the metrics seem to support my view that Steem is topping out in a crypto-libertarian-nerd-hippie groupthink.
And to challenge Jeff:
Edit:
It won't improve until we get rid of voting as the relevance and funding metric; and enable a way for specialist coteries to form spontaneously.
Quote from: @kaylinart
But recently I became self employed and I have a lot of debt. I'm using some of the money Ive been making to go on a small vacation and to pay off my debt. Once that is done, I intend to start powering up more.
It is very wise to pay off all debt before investing in a speculative blockchain project, especially one that locks up your money for 1 year average holding period.
I should make some disclosures so that you will be able to weigh my opinion with an understanding of my biases. If you had followed my links to Bitcointalk.org discussion, and had read many of iamnotback's (my) posts there, you would come to realize that I am intending to create a competitor to Steem, that will have some significant differences.
The problem I see with Steem's voting paradigm is that it motivates producing content which appeals site-wide, instead of to a coterie of like-minded followers. But site-wide focused content is a groupthink, meaning I think Steem will struggle to be relevant to wider diversity of audiences.
Also blogging is not something most people can do well, so why will millions of others join if the only they can read of the "we are change" (self-help, libertarian principles, anarchy proponents, why steemians are awesome, etc) groupthink blogs. The stats show that 93% of signups don't even earn $10 on Steem(it), so why would they bother to stay here. On Medium there are 20,000 people who blog weekly, and 25 million unique monthly blog readers. On Steem(it), we appear to have about 1500 serious bloggers active in the past week who've earned at least $100s. I doubt that Steemit has 2 million unique monthly readers (which is another reason to think Steemit's Alexa rank is not correct or manipulated as it estimates 6.5 million monthly readers).
But more importantly, I don't see why those serious Medium bloggers would switch to Steem(it), when they can't earn anything because their content doesn't appeal to the "we are change" mindset of the Steem groupthink.
And without growth, the monetary system of Steem will implode as it would then just be all of us extracting from the collective debasement of the money supply without any widespread viral growth to show for it, that would drive investment.
I have what I think is a better design, which solves these dilemmas. I think voting is a dysfunctional paradigm for numerous reasons. We shouldn't even be bothered with trying to discern what a vote should mean, as for example how you used downvoting as a weapon against @nameles who you felt was bad for the site. I understand the frustration with trolls and also the desire to protect the site, but that ends up as a war of attrition and no one wins if we all bind ourselves together in one groupthink and fight over who has control. Instead the solution is decentralization of groupings, so our like-minded groupings have localized control, not site-wide.
Also I think the Steem(it) name sucks. It doesn't speak to what a site like this really does and should be about, in terms of being a store of content for content producers.
I am not powering up because I must lock up my investment for 2 years (1 year weighted average price to power down). And in crypto s/w world, everything can change in a one month. The design I am contemplating, won't force anyone to power up in order to invest. Steem's design dilutes (liquid not powered up) STEEM at 50% yearly, thus it is not very attractive for medium-term speculation.
There are numerous flaws I see in Steem, although I think it has been an important experiment and I congratulate the creators on their initial success.
As in all things, best to diversify to hedge our bets. I continue to support Steem(it) and want to see where it can go, while I am also working on a competing design, so we all have options. Competition is what drives improvement.
Edit: my key point is that the groupthink of voting will discourage diversification of content and readership and thus limit Steem's upside adoption. So far, the metrics seem to support my view that Steem is topping out in a crypto-libertarian-nerd-hippie groupthink.
And to challenge Jeff:
Jeff, I don't think you nor the people you interviewed understand my reasons why I think Steem(it) will fail. Please read the following comment trail. Your anarchy theme and audience is well tuned to the groupthink, so it is misleading you as to actual appeal of this "circle-jerk" groupthink to the world outside our microscopic audiences.
Edit:
Quote from: coinbitgold
So today, @anyz posted this article The Steemit Tragedy of The Commons, i must say it is well-written and addressed most of my concerns about steemit's future. In particular, i refer to current steemit's content which is, i believe to be a race to the bottom in content quality.
It won't improve until we get rid of voting as the relevance and funding metric; and enable a way for specialist coteries to form spontaneously.
This arrives me to a question of will those people gaming the system massively make Steem tokens more in demand because of it? The more and more people use these services meaning the more and more people will want to hold it. It will then after make the demand for the Steem tokens higher than before. Is this a rational assessment?
You always need greater fools, otherwise there is a net outflow of exchange because serious people only do it if they are generating an extractable profit.
So you must ask if enough greater fools will become enticed to waste their money on this activity. I don't think so. Everyone on Steem(it), appears to be there to either extract money or to be a cheerleader. Those who invested in Steem, surely don't want to basterdize it by paying for these activities (unless the reason for their investment was to acquire enough SP to extract from the pool).
So looks to me to be yet another extraction mechanism, drawing more out of the collective pool.
I just encountered a game-theory-twist from the contributor point of view: If my post is considered garbage = I'm deleting it.
https://steemit.com/self-curation/@blockcodes/5zspes-content-with-no-value-will-be-removed
Mind blown at the implications...
https://steemit.com/self-curation/@blockcodes/5zspes-content-with-no-value-will-be-removed
Mind blown at the implications...
Nobody cares. Let him do that in his own microscopic vacuum.
The reputation system has turned voting into a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of a dolphin versus a minnow (as we predicted it would):
If there was a hardcap of 5 points by any individual (or "account" as Smooth corrected me), it wouldn't have happened (rep per day cap would still have caused it):
https://steemit.com/steemit/@alexgr/steemit-proposal-hardcap-any-reputation-reduction-from-a-single-individual-to-5
She then recruited her staunch supporters to do the same.
Also people can learn to create multiple accounts to bypass.
Quote
https://steemit.com/bots/@ygglas/upvote-follow-flags-per-0-01usd-accs-contract-price
Upvote / follow / flags / per 0.01$ , accs: contract price
1 hour ago by ygglas25
Upvote / follow / flags / accs steem market
https://steemit.com/@steemitmarket
anonymously
start price :
0.01$ per upvote and/or follow
0.01$ per flag
payment after work.
accounts: contract price.
now we have 800 bots with 3 SP , every day increases
Contacts:
telegram: @steemitmarket
skype: live:622390a9ed79e86f
facebook: https://facebook.com/steemitmarket
Upvote / follow / flags / per 0.01$ , accs: contract price
1 hour ago by ygglas25
Upvote / follow / flags / accs steem market
https://steemit.com/@steemitmarket
anonymously
start price :
0.01$ per upvote and/or follow
0.01$ per flag
payment after work.
accounts: contract price.
now we have 800 bots with 3 SP , every day increases
Contacts:
telegram: @steemitmarket
skype: live:622390a9ed79e86f
facebook: https://facebook.com/steemitmarket
LOOOOL
This arrives me to a question of will those people gaming the system massively make Steem tokens more in demand because of it? The more and more people use these services meaning the more and more people will want to hold it. It will then after make the demand for the Steem tokens higher than before. Is this a rational assessment?
Quote
https://steemit.com/bots/@ygglas/upvote-follow-flags-per-0-01usd-accs-contract-price
Upvote / follow / flags / per 0.01$ , accs: contract price
1 hour ago by ygglas25
Upvote / follow / flags / accs steem market
https://steemit.com/@steemitmarket
anonymously
start price :
0.01$ per upvote and/or follow
0.01$ per flag
payment after work.
accounts: contract price.
now we have 800 bots with 3 SP , every day increases
Contacts:
telegram: @steemitmarket
skype: live:622390a9ed79e86f
facebook: https://facebook.com/steemitmarket
Upvote / follow / flags / per 0.01$ , accs: contract price
1 hour ago by ygglas25
Upvote / follow / flags / accs steem market
https://steemit.com/@steemitmarket
anonymously
start price :
0.01$ per upvote and/or follow
0.01$ per flag
payment after work.
accounts: contract price.
now we have 800 bots with 3 SP , every day increases
Contacts:
telegram: @steemitmarket
skype: live:622390a9ed79e86f
facebook: https://facebook.com/steemitmarket
LOOOOL
I just encountered a game-theory-twist from the contributor point of view: If my post is considered garbage = I'm deleting it.
https://steemit.com/self-curation/@blockcodes/5zspes-content-with-no-value-will-be-removed
Mind blown at the implications...
If there was a hardcap of 5 points by any individual (or "account" as Smooth corrected me), it wouldn't have happened (rep per day cap would still have caused it):
https://steemit.com/steemit/@alexgr/steemit-proposal-hardcap-any-reputation-reduction-from-a-single-individual-to-5
https://steemit.com/self-curation/@blockcodes/5zspes-content-with-no-value-will-be-removed
Mind blown at the implications...
The reputation system has turned voting into a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of a dolphin versus a minnow (as we predicted it would):
If there was a hardcap of 5 points by any individual (or "account" as Smooth corrected me), it wouldn't have happened (rep per day cap would still have caused it):
https://steemit.com/steemit/@alexgr/steemit-proposal-hardcap-any-reputation-reduction-from-a-single-individual-to-5
Jump to: