Topic: Steemit how can this thing be workable long term? - page 25. (Read 32368 times)

As I have said previously, paid advertising is only 1 way of offsetting debasement. Gambling, gaming, marketplaces, exchanges, etc., are also methods of doing so. Paid advertising is just one puzzle piece.

Yeah, I need to rewrite the paid advertising proposal to make it easier to follow.

Steem functions fine without KYC due to votes and rewards weighted by SP. Establishing identity is again part of a different puzzle I am building. A puzzle of which when completed will result in better content creation. There are at least 3 more parts yet to be published.

I am trying to be nice to you, but can you stop attacking me on a personal level? When I do it back you cry about it, so just stop please.

I am not claiming these proposals are final and bullet proof. I published them for feedback and peer review.

Haha, point taken.

Well this is indeed a gigantic problem. And they'll basically continue to have this power until they cash out, right? Which probably no one would want to happen..

Only way to "fix" this would probably be to clone and re-launch as a new project, no? I'm assuming this is what at least some of you here are thinking about doing. The idea itself is awesome (fully decentralized community).

Admitting that pegged assets can't be decentralized. Okay fine by me as I never expected they could be. Better to be pragmatic.


This is very poorly written starting about mid-way through and I can't entirely follow what you are trying to say.

Any way, we already documented that advertising can't generate more than roughly $15 per user per year. So unless paying only a small % of the users these huge payouts is going to be sufficient incentive, then advertising is not a sufficient funding vehicle. Dan knows this and is why he is trying for the merchant business plan which we already discussed upthread and I explained to you probably won't work.

So it seems to me you are proposing non-solutions.


So Steem needs KYC to avoid the voting system being gamed, so that is why we keep all the voting power in a few whales hands and pretend the others users having voting power when they really don't.

Your amateurish skills are showing now... but at least you apparently understand (or are capable of understanding) many of the technical concepts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXsQAXx_ao0

(careful with speakers - he yells  )

The problem is that dan, ned and smooth decide what a quality post is. And so far they have decided that boobs and steem praise is a quality post.

So if you want to make money on steem you need to post a video of your gf in bikini on the streets handing out steem flyers.

Hah, touché. Though I still think there are some points in there worth discussing.
To be honest I hadn't given much thought to the so-called quadratic weighting scheme. I knew it existed, but thought it was less important compared to the vote of the masses. This was probably because the platform seem to promote a vibrant community where everyone has equal say and opportunity..which is what any newbie coming into the system will want. At least it should always be possible to work yourself up the ladder. Control of the votes shouldn't be centralized. Wouldn't it have made more sense long term for them to drop this system completely in favour of "flat" voting, reddit-style? Does this approach imply they are not looking for long term?

I would only get significant payouts if I wrote something positive for their aspirations (which jl777 did), as you did trying to make constructive suggestions for improvement.

If I wrote my true analysis per what I've written in this thread, I would probably receive numerous down votes from whales.

Do y'all want me to write my true thoughts just to prove that Steemit is a circle-jerk weighting system?

I probably should do it right, so as to show them that their system is downvoting dissenting opinions and thus implicating the system is a circle-jerk, and not an information resource akin to Reddit.

I think that I have thought of a way this can be fixed. I will be posting it in a proposal as soon as Steemit comes back online.

You see... rather than waste my time trolling a project because it isn't perfect (which they all aren't), I use my brain to think critically about the problems, then propose the solution I come up with. Being productive is a much better way to spend your time than trolling Bitcointalk.

STEEM PROPOSAL: Abolishing Liquidity Incentives And Reverting The Funds To Provide Actual Autonomous Liquidity

https://steemit.com/sip/@coinhoarder/steem-proposal-abolishing-liquidity-incentives-and-reverting-the-funds-to-provide-actual-autonomous-liquidity

STEEM PROPOSAL: Offsetting Steem Power Debasement Through Unobtrusive Advertisements:

https://steemit.com/sip/@coinhoarder/steem-proposal-offsetting-steem-power-debasement-through-unobtrusive-advertisements

STEEM PROPOSAL: Implementing Third Party Certificate Authorities To Combat Sybil:

https://steemit.com/sip/@coinhoarder/implementing-third-party-certificate-authorities-to-combat-sybil

tobysc, the quadratic weighting scheme means only a few whales decide what is paid the most. Popularity is not the metric used. So that throws the entire premise of your post off.

The funding model appears to be very dubious.

The attrition rate might be horrible (still waiting for their charts to come back online so we can analyze).

I'd like to give some comments on my experience with the platform so far and things I see as potential issues or bumps in the road. Perhaps we can have a discussion about these points. They will all assume the inner workings of the platform actually works (payouts etc). So these are more on a philosophical level.

QUALITY CONTROL
-
Basically what I mean by this is that posts of higher quality generally gets more votes than those of lesser quality. I will assume this is a goal the creators of the platform have in mind. The reasoning behind this would be that higher quality content equals more satisfied users long term.

With quality I mean original, well written posts with substance. These can be funny, interesting, important etc.

The opposite of this would be content with perhaps no text at all (for example just a link to an article), posts containing only pictures of semi-nude women etc.

Question #1
I'm going to just throw these questions out there for anyone to comment on.
Is quality something this platform is striving for? Or is it perhaps popularity (the latest memes etc) before substance? Personally I'd argue it's striving for both (quality + popularity), since it acts sort of like a self-moderating community which tries to make posts of higher quality more visible. The more popular something is, the higher quality (or is it the other way around? share your thoughts). In my opinion it's in the best interest of both the community and the creators that the top of every page is filled with interesting content. Consuming the content should be a rewarding experience.

Question #2
If you think quality is something they're trying to aim for..can this be achieved with the current voting system? My take in this is "maybe". I can see some behavioral patterns which might be conflicting with the goal of reaching quality. One of these patterns is that you gain more points by being early to vote on something which might later turn out to be very popular. This mechanic encourages mass-voting on people whom the community has decided is popular and are following. So as soon as this person makes a post, its likely to gain tremendous amounts of votes in a short time period, possibly independent of the quality of the post itself. Technically I could see a person striking gold with a particular post, gaining the masses on his or her side, and then not having to worry about substance ever again (or at least for a while). Can this issue be fixed by somehow tweaking the system and removing this domino effect, or do you think the community will sort it out automatically?

Question #3
If you think quality is something they're trying to aim for..can this be achieved with the current monetary system (getting paid to contribute)? Or will getting paid for everything result in posting behaviours which does not go hand in hand with quality (perhaps quantity first)? If so, how would you personally change things around to make it better? On the top of my head, they could stop giving out any rewards at all unless you do more work, say post x amounts of articles with positive ratings. Not everyone on YT for example gets paid but you can get paid if you make tons and tons of content and tons of people watch you. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. But perhaps it does go against the whole idea of everyone getting paid. In any case people still post YT videos for other reasons than to just get money. And perhaps those reasons (various niched hobbies, spontaneously sharing funny moments etc) lead to better content than if YT had offered micro payments for everyone?

COPYRIGHT
-
Concerns about the right to post certain content, images etc has been brought up. This is also something I have been thinking about.

Question #1
Is the website (steemit.com) as it currently functions viable in terms of copyright or will it be hunted down if it reaches high enough adoption? I'd argue yes it will probably be hunted down. The posts are all saved on the blockchain, yet the website itself remains centralized, if you will. As far as I understand they could technically be forced to shut it down if they get enough pressure. This could hurt the "brand" significantly since it seems the goal is to have a single easy gate to the service which should preferably always stay open and not move anywhere.

Question #2
If you said yes and the only option for survival long term is to have everything 100% decentralized, will this contradict the the goal of easy access? Or can both be achieved at the same time? What I mean by this is to have everything 100% safe from any censorship while still keeping it super user friendly and open to anyone.

Just some general thoughts. What do you think?

lol

Lets see if he changes his mind...

But he can now FUD and get paid.

Imagine anonymint bitching all day about various crypto projects, perhaps even steem itself, AND getting paid for it

He doesn't care about that, FUDing pays more.

https://steemit.com/steem/@alexgr/planning-for-long-term-success-of-steemit-identifying-areas-of-improvement

I don't think the founders understand the barriers to entry and barriers to use and "incentives" to bail out of the system due to problems encountered.

However, despite that, it's growing up.

I think you should register and make a "Hi, I'm Anonymint" introduction. You'll make 10k easy. Heck, jl777 made 20k => https://steemit.com/introduceyourself/@jl777/steemit-is-crypto-s-first-mass-market-solution

This

Right now all I am seeing is dick stroking about "ZOMG 11,000 users!" but not only is that a low number, as other projects have gotten 100,000s of downloads, but it doesn't indicate to us about the retention rate of these users staying and contributing to the network.   We have many metrics available which suggest Steemit is less popular than other Reddit clones.  As well from what I have seen on the website, almost all the comments / replies are from people who aren't even able to make $1.  There's a lot of wannabe content producers on Steemit who are unable to make $5 and they're starting to get disillusioned.

 We have many metrics available like Alexa ranking which suggest Steemit is less popular than other Reddit clones.   There's nothing viral or mainstream about Steemit.

Perhaps this will open the can of worms and create a social media race among crypto but, unless you can break out into viral adoption, it's all "FOMO" like we've seen since 2013.

First we have to see if the model is even working in terms of usership. And in terms of being able to fund paying users adequately ongoing. And if you did relaunch, you might not be able to retain the same economic incentives with a fair distribution.

The entire thing looks retarded to me (for the many reasons that have been explained upthread) which would not be entirely fixed with a fair distribution, but I am still waiting for the charts link to stop being under maintenance so I can see if this paradigm has any viral adoption with a reasonable attrition rate. I doubt it!

The best thing that could happen would be for all those who locked their investment for 2 years in Steam Power, to watch the project die to $0 exchange price while they are prevented from cashing out. A nice spanking for idiots. Unfortunately these markets are often quite irrational, so I doubt the best thing will happen first (but maybe last).

The Steemit and Graphene DPoS block chain developers are apparently thinking that they can handle any popular use cases with a 3 - 5 second block confirmation delay and without letting any user do multiple 5 second transactions within a small time window of say for example 1 minute (or perhaps the limitation is as high as 10 minutes in their case but I don't know precisely).

They also state in the Steem white paper that microtransactions (aka pay-per-use) is not a popular use case, because it is well known that users don't like the cognitive cost of reasoning about many small valued transactions.


But I believe there are gamification use cases where users need rapid-fire pay-per-use. Gamification is for example how Farmville become the most addictive and profitable game on Facebook.

Even if I am incorrect about gamification, some types of smart contracts and block chains as a decentralized database may need rapid-fire instant transactions. Streemit I presume makes the assumption that a human user can't touch the block chain database more often than perhaps once or twice per minute, but that assumption is quite arbitrary and limiting if you think about it.

Also I don't expect DPoS to be able to maintain 5 second transactions, defend against DDoS attacks, and scale to 100,000 transactions per second without being centralized by an oligarchy of delegate miners.

In short, I am thinking Graphene and DPoS is not a sufficiently robust technology to take us forward into the Blockchain 2.0 era.

They've placed all their eggs in the Graphene basket. And I think they will discover it is not robust enough for putting the masses on a block chain.

So I think their core block chain technology which they are so proud of and trying to leverage, is actually deficient. And that is fundamental, even notwithstanding the other flaws I think I am seeing their inability to understand social networks.

Im starting to think on steemit the whales just vote for each other, my post gets 20 votes $0.017 not  saying its any good my post but fuckinhell some other shit got 20votes and $1017.00 just makes me wish i wouldn't of bothered and now glad i dint put more into steem power !

https://steemit.com/trending/@ph111p/5jvnhk-yes-you-can-spend-money-from-steemit-it-is-real-we-have-paid-our-trip-to-disney-usa-part-1-the-big-countdown

In the future some people won't fork steemit.com they will fork the whole protocol and launch with a fair distribution so that there isn't huge voting power discrepancy, which is key in that type of system.

Dan, perhaps you might want to read my edits again, to be sure you still agree they are accurate.

I see you failed to note the words "may be" and "i can not confirm if this is real or fake" that is in what you quoted before any edit was made. Disingenuous is your desperate trolling tactic.

---

Edit: there is some more discussion at the Bitshares forum:



This last comment is true that if you are using a website wallet, you really are using a centralized wallet regardless if the private key is only stored on a paper wallet.

Also I am LMAO that Streemit is apparently using PHP server-side, the same insecure language Mark Karpeles used for Mt. Gox.

And more people are starting to realize this is a corporate controlled block chain:


The block chain isn't necessarily decentralized either, because it is DPoS. At least the checkpoints have to be centralized.