My argument is people will follow the content providers--if you offer them superior resources (security, content production, billing services {bid, buy, rent, ect} and do this at a cheaper rate than anyone else can offer, then you get stickiness for the content provider and that's all that matters--look at chatterbate and girls getting paid with amazon gifting (people will jump through whatever hoop to get the content they want--barring something outrageous of course.
There are very few narrow markets which can be so unique that no one can get them any where else for fiat.
Chatterbate accepts credit cards:
https://ssl-ccstatic.highwebmedia.com/ccauth.pdfNote my mind is too hazy because I am very sleepy right now as I haven't slept for about 24 hours (had to go out and do errands before sleeping, just got back to house).
The more I think about this, in the case of STEEM vs. STEEM POWER, then all that really matters is you can get a high rate of transaction flow in and out of the coin. So the savers will cash out to fiat is not a problem. Because all you need is that there are a lot of other people who hold STEEM often (even if each one of them only holds it for a short-time) so that investors who hold STEEM POWER are not effectively paying the debasement cost.
So I think I agree that if you can get people to buy STEEM tokens in order to spend them in the ecosystem, then you will have solved the funding problem.
But remember that a blockchain is not a closed ecosystem. There is no way to force the content creators to only accept STEEM. Users will be able to run any decentralized client. There needs to be some compelling reason for users to want to buy some STEEM and use it to pay with instead of BTC or credit cards.
So with that, I think the problem is still not solved unless there are compelling reasons to pay in STEEM versus credit cards or BTC, but let me check my logic when I wake up....
So to reiterate the point of my last two paragraphs quoted above, the Steem blockchain is orthogonal to the (e.g. steemit.com) client interface. So other developers could create an alternative steemit.com client that interacts with the Steem blockchain, which enables paying with credit cards or Bitcoin. One reason you might be forced to use STEEM instead of Bitcoin, is if STEEM has 5 second instant confirmations (although sometimes Bitcoin also has very fast 0-confirmations). Obviously credit card payments aren't instant nor are they free of chargebacks and high fees, but if what is being paid for doesn't require instant then credit cards are not excluded. And maybe Lightning Networks is coming to bring Bitcoin instant transactions (but LN is a technically complicated system as currently proposed that might end up having some tradeoffs).
So if we want to build exclusivity into STEEM, we want to build things to pay for which require 5 second confirmations.
Yet I have a block chain technology under development which I claim (i.e. not yet peer verified) could do sub-1 second confirmations.
And also I have an idea how to make STEEM very exclusive (even if other blockchains add instant transaction confirmations), but it would require that we abandon the free tokens on signup (which means abandoning the 57 million tokens "pre"-mine). So this sort of indicates to me we should fork Steem and redo it with a corrected design. But I am still contemplating all the factors. There is a lot of analyze and I want to make sure I haven't missed some key point.
I am very much wanting feedback on this point. For me at the moment, this is the most crucial point to analyze.
