Topic: Steem pyramid scheme revealed - page 73. (Read 107058 times)

Looks like attractive women and people with sob-stories are getting all the votes.

It's hilarious to see retards complain about their posts not making money... fucking lol. Women have ALWAYS got the pedestal treatment in social media, no reason to cry about it. And a lot of the retards who are complaining are also mimicking top voted posts thinking they will get the same treatment.

Is this supposed to be a personal BLOG? or something more similar to Reddit? If this is meant to be the next Reddit they need to change the layout drastically because I try to discuss current events or bitcoin trading and stumble across some retard's personal blog/intro post in every section.

My steemit account is "worth" $2.5K which I mostly acquired though posting, which is nice I guess. This is a new concept and it's been gaining a massive following and newcomers into crypto... it's not even a competition for bitcoin, if anything this is a compliment to bitcoin, so not sure why some of you here are hating so much and trying hard to make it seem like a ponzi scam

Payouts are nonlinear: As a post accumulates upvotes, its rewards per upvoting SP increase. So if your account adds $1.00 to a new post, it will add a lot more than $1.00 to a post in the $5000+ range.

There are several things I want to use Steem for. I'd like to use Steemit as a platform of self-expression. I like to write and share original content about Philosophy, Politics and Economics. I have also put high hopes that Steem, supported by Steemit, will become the first wide-spread crypto adoption which will eventually disrupt government monopolies over the issuance of money. In addition, I look forward to have a market place in which people can trade goods and services with Steem.

You know what I really like about Steemit? It's that it allows people to get closer to each other. A certain way of centralizing isolated information. People to connect, share information, and interchange values. But at the same time, it uses a cryptocurrency that is decentralizing. Making us less depending on governments money issuance and probably more personal financial freedom. Positive movements in two major macro dimensions.

My point is to prove the ranking system is a circle-jerk and thus the system has no value.

I entirely expect to not get upvotes. I will be surprised if I do.

There is a difference between criticizing and stating facts. The facts I stated have been vetted by all of you here, as you had every chance to refute me during the discussion. I want to test if otherwise very smart people will reject and ignore facts.

Also perhaps you failed to notice, the first item is not a criticism against Steem but rather in support of it (except that Steem doesn't yet support community building).

P.S. I wasn't going to post again on Steem because I realize most of the whales have probably figured out that I am strongly leaning against supporting it. I realized I needed to compile all my recent analysis, and I might as well prove to myself that my assumption is correct that the system is a circle-jerk lying system.

It's not what you say. It's the way you package it.

Excuses. Political correct circle-jerk systems are not informational. Useless system being confirmed.

You refuse to upvote a very detailed post which gives users and investors very valuable information not available in any other post, because of one-word you don't like, which is just an excuse for being butthurt and the word "lie" hurts you because you invested in this crap. It hurts your ego because you really thought this crap was great.

You can criticize something without being aggressive with labels like "liiiiieeees", which then, due to creating friction and a bad environment, creates a self-validating prophecy of not getting upvotes.

I don't think smooth will upvote you, but then again, it's his vote. I won't (even if its worth 3 cents) due to the labels. We can have a mature conversation without them.

Or maybe they will downvote since you used links to other post without their approval. lol

Let's see if I can earn any money telling the truth on Steemit:

https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/lies-about-steem-and-steemit

Please consider upvoting me if you appreciate my effort. Lots effort has gone into this detailed analysis.

I hope @smooth upvotes me so he can show he was not overly biased by his large stake and thus showing the authorities he was not participating in misleading any investors. I would hope other whales have the similar conscience and rationality.

Of course I don't expect it to be upvoted.

My point is to prove the ranking system is a circle-jerk and thus the system has no value.

I entirely expect to not get upvotes. I will be surprised if I do.

There is a difference between criticizing and stating facts. The facts I stated have been vetted by all of you here, as you had every chance to refute me during the discussion.

Dude, you're trying to criticise a system while at the same time reap rewards from it. Do you not sense a bit of the absurdity? Also, your pleas for upvote scraps come off kind of pathetic.

Let's see if I can earn any money telling the truth on Steemit:

https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/lies-about-steem-and-steemit

Please consider upvoting me if you appreciate my effort. Lots effort has gone into this detailed analysis.

I hope @smooth upvotes me so he can show he was not overly biased by his large stake and thus showing the authorities he was not participating in misleading any investors. I would hope other whales have the similar conscience and rationality.

But Facebook has 1000s of employees. You don't develop the breadth and depth of Facebook's ecosystem and thus feature set overnight with one developer. They need a plan to build a company with many developers in order to reproduce Facebook. Or they need open source it and hope the ecosystem grows with network effects. But their license on Steem doesn't even allow forking. And Steemit isn't even open sourced (yet).

The developer of Steem is one of the most talented in crypto so if the Steem vs. Reddit model worked they could certainly rapidly develop a Facebook type extension on the same principles where the most popular content is rewarded. (You could actually create any model that paid new users for sign ups/content/other and in the process attract lots of new users and look like you have a popular and growing site.)

If they are the 1.3 billion from Facebook, they aren't likely using Reddit either with its 0.16 billion usership. There are so many different things that users can do on Facebook. Steem is so one-feature-wonder.

And my point is the monetary payouts are not important to most users (because they aren't significant).

The concept of Steem has some upside, but fully leveraging the conceptual model is going to require a lot more development work.

Carrying on from my prior post...

Furthermore, please note that the Steem white paper's claim there are no transaction fees is an obfuscation of the truth (i.e. it is a lie). Users need STEEM and/or SP stake in order to send any data to the blockchain, i.e. stake-weighted bandwidth limits. The stake holders vote on delegates who then vote on the choice of amount of dilution of the money supply in order to pay the various nodes in the system which validate and maintain the blockchain.

Since this dilution of the money supply debasing the value of the STEEM and/or SP holdings of the user, then this is analogous to paying a transaction fee. The difference is that if the users were paying transaction fees, we could have a competitive market of competing aggregators (e.g. steemit.com) which the users are paying, instead of Dan, Ned, and smooth deciding for the users how much to pay the various nodes (thus kickbacks, overpaying, and all sorts of corruption possible not to mention being very vulnerable to legal action from the government and/or RIAA). Worse is even if the user is not using the system, their stake is continuously being debased! It is not a meritocracy!

This is why people are stating that users will need to periodically buy more stake with outside currency, if they don't earn enough from blogging, because the Steem system is debasing them continuously. So there is no advantage over transactions fees (except for not needing to validate a microtransaction each time a user votes) and some severe disadvantages. I am telling you all that the Graphene blockchain design is not sufficient. I didn't waste the past year or more fixing Satoshi's design and not choosing to adopt Dan's DPoS, because I am an idiot. I did that, because I can see that DPoS is a dead-end direction.

We covered upthread and the other Steem threads, that the insiders' 80% of the money supply (stake) "pre"-mine is not going to be diluted much faster than 10% yearly (assuming they don't use their voting power to further concentrate their stake), because we were able to compute from the published blockchain data that the attrition rate of new signups is roughly 80% and thus the majority of the 40% portion of the "pre"-mine allocated to giving away to new signups, will become abandoned and thus removed from the effective money supply.

CoinHoarder, this is what I mean when I say Dan always produces designs which are socialism or top-down collectivism, instead of true decentralization and maximum degrees-of-freedom+resilience. I always know he will do this. It is something in the way his brain works which AnonyMint observed back in 2013 in our discussion/debates on this BCT forum.

LOL, as if my tiny 1-2% stake even gets me a seat at the table.

If they manage to make a success of it I stand to do well, but I have zero say about anything. Probably quite a few things would be different if I did, but I don't so I'm just a passive investor like (almost) everyone else.