Topic: Steem pyramid scheme revealed - page 44. (Read 107064 times)

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):

See comments of @nameles on this page:

https://steemit.com/life/@kaylinart/is-online-dating-good-or-bad-for-society

Read how ballastic she went against this user on the following page near my comment:

New kind of spam might drive away females?

https://steemit.com/steemit/@alexgr/steemit-creators-this-is-the-best-feedback-you-can-get-go-undercover-for-a-week-as-minnows

I've really enjoyed Steem(it), because I've been able to see what real people are up to and thinking. And I've come across some (at least above average) intelligent, attractive mothers.

Afaik, @kaylinart has been one of the most enthusiastic and artistically talented female bloggers on Steem:

My mother who is 70, former newspaper co-editor, and who is much more astute with words and language than I am, says that she really likes the new name I have thought of.

She said it fits well with the memes of Millenial generation, is also a very serious name while having a fun side that is even applicable to music (as well as blogging), and has numerous meanings all of which are applicable.

So I think the name choice is done. I don't expect any competing project to find a better name than the one I've chosen.

---

Use or be used has been the reality in Asia. Asians are very comfortable with the reality of economic slavery. We in the West have had such a good run of economic success (as opposed to the time before the Black Death in Europe when every European was living at the level of rat), that we thought this reality no longer exists.

You can even see this clash of cultures on that one female Steemian blogger @sweetsssj from China, who is just milking the system and doesn't reply to any of my comments which challenge her. She makes clickbait titles and is milking the "China is cool" circle-jerk. Meaning she wants to reply only to superficial comments, and she doesn't want to frankly interact with her audience (contrast against music creator Leah McHenry below or some of the other popular western female Steemian bloggers such as @kaylinart).

---

Agreed, but growth comes from some underlying viral qualities.


Well yeah it looks unpredictable to those who are incapable of loading everything that is going on, in their head and processing it.

We know already based on current metrics that Steemit.com (as current formulated) is not scaling virally. I am counting only about 1500 serious users on the 7 day active distribution at steemd.com.

What is less obvious is whether there are some feature changes or entirely new UI apps built on the Steem blockchain, which could fundamentally alter the current trajectory. If my analysis of the key flaws is correct, then I think the Steem blockchain is incompatible with any attempt to build a different UI on it for viral growth.


I think the blackswan is more likely to come from a competitor to Steem which is not just a fork.

Btw, the following confirms everything I've been saying about the critical importance of building sub-communities (and make sure you listen to how she first failed with posting her content to Facebook). But it also points to a serious fault in Steem's design of making everything public on the blockchain:


This is also relevant:

https://steemit.com/steem-help/@jacor/can-the-social-code-be-cracked

That's the point though: Cryptocurrency systems should not be cheatable. If you have gaming vectors then you must patch them (unless it involves social engineering / gaming the human psychology). In that sense, anyone showing you an exploitable attack vector is doing a service.

I wonder what it is with Asians. They always like to cheat when it comes to money. They did the same with Stellar when they had a facebook giveaway. It is also the same in games of chance. All they do is try to cheat.

I think growth is critical, everything else should follow from that.

But it seems to me your analysis is missing an important point, namely, that the initial beginning of a viral growth seems to be more counter-intuitive until it reaches a critical point where, all of a sudden, lots of other unforeseen network effects kick in and it becomes obvious. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that the puzzle fits together.

Will probably write a longer post discussing the problem. I am also putting serious thought into a design and Steemit is an extremely valuable inspiration.

I had some preliminary architecture in mind, but think it can be hugely improved thanks to recent experiments with several other projects.

I could have said the same thing about facebook using a 3month sample from various time frames--I was referring to the graph you posted a while back that showed the large jumps in usership occurred at around the 2 year mark for most social networks--the only outlier being Instagram.

Are you referring to Google search popularity that I mentioned in my blogs week ago?

Facebook reached 1 million users in 11 months (which is roughly 10X Steem's current growth rate) and the Internet population was 1/5 then (so Steem is growing 1/50th as fast as Facebook did, unless it can accelerate):



If yes, note steemit has already peaked and is declining:

https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&q=steemit

Rocket ascent is the outlier in the graphs you used, so I'm not sure why you assume steemit would be the exception--Instagram's straight out the gate burst was probably due to low user expectations as far as language and interface is concerned (a monkey could probably be taught to use it), whereas steem is more complicated, so lag should correspond to complexity. Unless someone finds a way to dumb it down tremendously, they probably maintain their lead. All the algo and initial distribution arguments seem like theater of distraction at this point. If serious people can maintain their interest and grow their bases organically, then there's a chance that it works (at least as far as blogging goes).

I believe it is unlikely for Steem to make any changes that would create viral adoption. I thus believe it will peak at much less than 1 million users.

Yes I think you need a rocket viral ascent.

---

The Chinese appear to be coming to game Steem's curation reward system:


Later they will realize they need to collude to take more of the money, as did the Bitcoin Chinese mining cartel.

But Bitcoin has a use case. I fear Steem will unravel. I don't think it can sustain at a low level of usership because the forces holding it up are expectations and later these must turn into fighting over money (Tragedy of the Commons).

All that changes perhaps if Steem has a widespread use case. But I don't see it.

My guess it is in more in the 2 year time frame for social media success--and not in the rocket ascent of an instagram outlier. Or did I read you charts wrong, Shelby

Investors. Later demand for commerce. The key is viral adoption growth.

Btw, I'm #44 on the Top 50 list at Steem this week:

https://steemit.com/steemstats/@lukestokes/exchange-transfer-report-08-07-2016-to-08-13-2016

This is relevant to our discussion:

https://steemit.com/steemit-ambassador/@hisnameisolllie/how-to-explain-steem-it-to-a-friend




Lol:

Start from where you failed last time: Where is the money going to come from?

All the engagement metrics are declining:

https://steemle.com/charts.php

One more followup:


And yeah I am trying to get off the forum, but I want to make sure my logic is not incorrect. Because I expended a couple of months of intense work to code  a dating site last Spring 2015 and it wasn't well thought out in terms of monetization and thus I wasted all that effort. So I want to make sure that before I go into the coding cave, that I'm not wasting my intense effort.

I am thinking there is a very easy way to determine if Steem or any competitor such as Peerplays is failing.

As @xtester wrote in his most recent blog, it is all about the rate of growth. Which is what I've been saying.

Seems Steem signups are averaging in the rough neighborhood of 1000 per day and are not increasing. Of these, about 80+% become inactive within 30 days or less (xtester claims 66% but I think he is fooled by a recent reacceleration of signups and my prior calculations showed 80+%).

So with actually about 200 signups per day, that is ... drumroll please ... a humongous 73,000 active users after 1 year.

And we don't know how many of those are bots. And we don't know how many of those will quit within a year.

73,000 users is freckle on an elephants ass when we are talking about the economies-of-scale in networking that are necessary to make a social network (and merchant) ecosystem viable.

Even if we increase that by an order-of-magnitude, at 730,000 users in one year, it is still at least an order-of-magnitude insufficient.

There is a deeper point. The Steem adoption rate numbers are indicative of lack of viral spread. The signups are merely barely replacing attrition. Intuitively I am nearly certain that the reason is because there is no compelling networking of the reason to signup.

Try to understand the reason people signed up for other social networks. It was because they did something very unique and in high demand. So when all your friends were joining, you caved in and joined too.

Steem has none of those attributes. It doesn't do something very unique that is in high demand. And not all of my friends are joining. The reason is because most people don't give a fuck about storage persistance and censorship resistance, and blogging to earn $ is not something most people can do well (and besides it is not immediately gratification and requires a lot of work, both of which are things the masses hate).

Sorry you need a new formula and Peerplays can repeat this same mistake but it won't cross the chasm.

I have a plan and a design and now I've chosen a 5 letter, one syllable name.

25mn is the figure for medium, not steem.

I was bieng sarcastic