Topic: Steemit.com: Blogging is the new Mining - page 153. (Read 348614 times)

Will bookmark sorry i am newbie.

It is interesting how people define "fair" because it almost always boils down to wealth reallocation and jealousy (someone wanting something for nothing).

"Fairness" can mean many things, but usually it means "equal".  There are three kinds of equal: "equal opportunity", "equal outcome", and "equal exchange".  

Steem was launched with equal opportunity to mine. Everyone in the world interested in new crypto-project announcements had equal opportunity to follow the thread, setup a VPS, and mine.  

But many will argue that 'mining' wasn't equal opportunity because not everyone had time to setup and find out about it.  This is true, mining is not an equal opportunity means to get coins because only 1 in 1000 has the technical ability to mine.  Everyone else just buys when the miners dump. Is it fair that the miners get to dump on everyone else and make a nice profit?  What value did they really bring the the table that makes it 'fair'?

Steemit recognized that more people need to have an opportunity to get involved, in particular we want people to be able to get a meaningful amount of Steem without mining. In this case, there is truly "equal opportunity" for everyone to get a couple of dollars worth of STEEM just for being a person. Not only is that "equal opportunity" but it is also "equal outcome", because regardless of when you learn about Steem you get a meaningful amount just for signing up. This level of fairness can only be achieved if Steemit has a lot of Steem to hand out.  

Lastly, there is equal exchange. If you assume the creators own 100% of the fruit of their labor, then they are free to give it away or sell it at what ever price the market will bare. Every voluntary exchange is fair by definition or the parties wouldn't have agreed to the exchange.

So it seems there is one last bone of contention that is at the root of all complaints:  "Steemit can dump and everyone who buys now will lose money".  

This statement is true, we could sell all of our Steem over a short period of time during which there are no buyers. Such a move would reduce the price, but it wouldn't change the value. The result of the sale is simply that Steem moved from one set of hands (who could DUMP) to a new set of hands (who could DUMP).  It wouldn't make the project dead, it would just be under new management.

Unlike every other crypto-project out there, Steem actively transfers value from those who are short-term thinkers (ready to dump), to those who are long-term thinkers (willing to hold).  Steem was designed to prevent dumping.

Those who fear dumping assume there is no underlying value in what has been created.  From this assumption they assume creators perceive no value in their creation and thus all selling at any price is profitable. Furthermore, anyone buying at any price is guaranteed a loss.   Regardless of the creators perception of value, others in the market are free to make their own assessment of value.

Suppose Steemit were to burn its STEEM, what would the result be?  Would it increase the value?  Would it make the remaining distribution "more fair"?  What would happen is that the market cap would be redistributed over the remaining holders.  These new holders would realize a huge profit. Not having anything significant invested there would be a larger chance of dumping.

Try out Steemit.com, it is better than "free", it pays you! We are literally giving money away every single day. It has even lower risks than mining (which is just another way of buying in).

Take a look at BTS for a second. Won't adress rest of the points, your arguments are very far from making sense.

First off, I generally don't believe in fair currency distribution at all. It always requires monetary investments, which excludes great parts of the people.
The way steem works will forever favor those that were in earlier. Apart from that, anyone can get in anytime in various ways, and the main way doesn't require any technical knowledge or financial investment.

I don't have a problem with the situation that the guys who spent months of their time to create something others can profit from for an indefinite time to come secured their part of the cake in some way.
I'm also not afraid of dumping, because I trust them more to care about the future of their project, than ICO investors or miners which just jump on the most profitable train all the time.

Of course it is an experiment, but a well thought-out one imo. You have to leave behind a lot of the bct-way of thinking though. Steem is not primarily a currency. After reading the whitepaper a lot of things might get more clear.

We 2 have nothing to talk about if this distribution met your standards of fairness. 

I've never seen one of the steemit guys advising anyone to buy in. The OP doesn't even contain links to exchanges. Instead, it promotes the free signups.

Your definition of a fair currency distribution wasn't met, you made that point clear. It would've been possible to do so without showing that you have no idea of what steem is in the first place.
Let me highlight this gem, to add it to the historical records  

Doesn't matter what you call it, the OP of the previous ANNs were misleading in the sense that it indicated that there was nothing wrong with the launch and it was a FAIR launch, which it wasn't, specially after you relaunched the coin after your miners crashed. Also I would like to see a notice in the op advising against buying on exchanges. The moment you need funding, you will dump directly on the people who are invested through an exchange. Do this an I'll stop taking part in this thread, because the instamine/premine/ninjamine (call it what you want) won't matter if you advise people not to invest, but to only take part in the steem forum community.
 
Saying "XY" can dump aswell isn't a response to this. You are the developers, you own the biggest stash of this token and you will 100% dump a good part of it, because you NEED the funding (this was clear from the blogpost). You can not tell if others will do the same. You need to play fair with your actions after that shady launch if you want to create a proper project and not just a for-profit one.

Currently you own the biggest stash out of everyone and no expenditure is accounted for and nothing from this is indicated in the OP, you just keep closing ANNs with the history of the project.

Furthermore, the Steemit team has adopted a neutral position on witnesses and isn't voting. 

The question of whether or not there were lies depends upon definitions. Understanding that people can and do have different definitions for the same word is the first step to resolving conflict.

Here is my perspective and thinking at the time we posted:

1. Steem is not a pre-mine because we did no mining before the code was public and anyone could participate
2. Steem is not an insta-mine because mining occurred at a fixed rate for a full month before VESTING kicked in, also mining continues for ever
3. Steem is not an IPO / ICO because we didn't sell anything before we delivered the goods

After we launched a new term was introduced 'ninja-mine' which I presume means "sneeky"... but we admitted at launch that that was our intention.

So all that people are left with is that "early miners" have the ability to "dump" and suppress the price. Guess what, miners have dumped much more than Steemit has sold. I myself have purchased a lot of steem.

Lastly, we designed the system from the beginning to encourage commitment and discourage dumping.

So it is relatively clear that the only people being deceptive and dishonest are the trolls who make accusations without knowing what they are talking about. The only people getting scammed are those who are scared away by the trolls.  We have asked for nothing and given much. The market will sort out whether or not Steem has value.

The comment about 19 witnesses also misunderstands how Steem consensus works.

Unlike BTS there is not a set number of witnesses. The top 19 are primary witnesses but everyone else who gets at least one vote is a timeshared backup witness (more votes means more time). In fact you can just vote yourself in as a timeshared witness. It absolutely makes sense to vote for people who aren't in the top 19 if you think they are good witnesses. One in particular who comes to mind is masteryoda, who seems capable and an all-around good guy (though I only know him briefly from online). He has my votes and IMO should get a few more votes, but that is not to disparage anyone else.

You obviously didn't get the whole concept traumschiff.
While you're of course free to dislike the way the project is funded, there was nothing that could justify calling it a scam.
There is a working product since months.
Information was out here on BCT before mining started, the public mining phase lasted a month. Exactly as announced.

All your posts sound like "steemit has all the coins, and they will dump on you guys"
In fact, their stash is vested like anyone elses. Yes, they could drive the price down to nowhere (so could some others) in 1-2 weeks. In reality, they stopped divesting for the price to recover before they continue with their planned sales. It's handeled fully transparently, and the community has influence over slack.
They use some of the funds to distribute to new users, nevertheless "Blogging is the new mining" is fully correct, because new coins are created for authors.

Over time, the stake of steemit will vanish while authors accumulate. You can join in and get your piece of the cake, without spending a single satoshi. Or you can make a fool of yourself by only looking at the STEEM price and showing off your half-knowledge.

I do not advise anyone to invest in STEEM. If you do, I suggest to make a long-term commitment and convert to SteemPower. Speculator-unfriendliness is one of the things I like most about steem ;-)
But: there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't use the platform - except when you hate free money.

Witness pay is just a fraction of what will be distributed for votes. And there's a lot more than 19 witness candidates. No idea who you are, but when you're a candidate and not voted in chat me up, I'm sure I can tell you some of the reasons ;-)

19 ppl vote for each other to be witness ... lol

and only each other ... milk cow will die soon get your sell in

The investment advice might be okay but the bold part is wrong. The content rewards are issued by the blockchain, not the website and there is nothing "centrally issued" about it. The only thing in terms of coins that is done via the web site is new users getting a small amount to seed their accounts when they sign up.

well someone agree with me :D ... but you know what some coins really need the instamine to grow lol most big project got instamined ... but what i don't really agree with is that coin developers saying there was no instamine, i mean come it was a hell of instamine like biggest ever as you said im okay with it tho

The blockchain determine everything by voting.  The more consensus there is around your post the more you make.

If you "reblog" posts from another blog then it depends on many factors to see how voters turn out.

Agree, but let's see at the end of summer.
PS: Quote for history.

Sweet that you actually believe they pushed everything into the website and magically require no funding now. Let's see what a STEEM is worth in a few weeks.

For reference:



Vol: 7 BTC

Buy Support: 27 BTC

Oh and Poloniex will probably never add this, so good luck getting attention on scam supporting Bittrex.

has anyone tried this? how did it go?

Here is the better view: http://steemd.com/@steemit

Yeah, you are doing a great job at advising people to buy into this.