Topic: Steemit.com: Blogging is the new Mining - page 82. (Read 348621 times)

Those were done by a community member (@thecryptodrive) using the site as a source of crowdfunding. Unfortunately, as the price of STEEM has fallen the ability to do this for projects on that scale isn't there any more.

I don't know what plans the HQ may have for marketing, but I wouldn't expect to see those kinds of big-ticket efforts from the community at this point.


That's a load of crap. At least 30% of the Bitcoin supply was mined into existence at <$1. A lot of that has never moved and can dump on new investors heads at any time.

And even if it were true, it would not change the dynamics with respect to a Ponzi scheme. To prevent the Bitcoin price from crashing, even today, requires that new money continually enter (even if old investors don't dump). In other words, existing investors are relying on new investors to generate a return (and even to not lose their money). That's the definition of a Ponzi scheme, and there is no difference in this regard between Bitcoin (or any other coin with block rewards) and Steem.


See you soon.

I remember last summer in my hometown Zagreb,Croatia the billboards on the streets about steemit.com, I didnt expect that  Are you guys planing another real world marketing round? people outside cryptosphere could except this platform as one of their social medias cause it seems clean and organized. Will you have a facebook paid campaign or they (the facebook) wont let you advertise cause you are possible competitor ?

I can't believe how you cherry pick points in order to be able and argue with me. You can obviously code (as you are a developer for monero), but you also have no clue how economics work. You simply choose to ignore the fact that Bitcoin (and other PoW coin buyers) knowingly invest that every single coin created into existense has a base price because on the other side someone invested lots of money into mining. This is a huge way coming from creating coins for free for a respost on a blog, no investor in their right mind will buy and hold coins that someone gets for that amound of work.

I'm out, enjoy supporting the second Larimer scam. I'll come back at 5k sats again though, when the marketcap halves again.

I keep telling you (and it is correct) that this is the case for any coin with block rewards (including PoW). Where do those block rewards go? One of:

1. New buyers
2. Existing holders/miners increasing their investment (equivalent to capital inflow)
3. Crashing the market

There is no difference here. The new coins (block reward) go to posters instead of miners. But either way, they still require capital inflow (what you call fresh blood). And to the extent that the inflow exceeds the outflow and the price goes up, that benefits the existing holders, starting with the biggest.

The hyperinflation arguments are nonsense whether they come from you or Tone. Earning 100% interest on something that doubles its money supply leaves you in just the same place you started, and that's about how Steem worked under hyperinflation (if one looked at VESTS, the underlying non-hyperinflationary token on the blockchain, the supply barely budged, and neither did most holdings). For example, this "The biggest holders can keep their stake goin and power down constantly thus profiting nonstop" is completely wrong (again whether it comes from you or Tone). Someone who powers down will reach zero in the appointed time period regardless of staking (used to be 104 weeks, now 13 weeks).

Everything else you wrote (for example, that you can't spend the coins anywhere) is true of just about every, if not every, coin except Bitcoin (and even Bitcoin's so-called use cases beyond speculation are somewhat of a joke in terms of scale).

So I'm really not sure what your gripe is here, other than:

1. Unfair launch and distribution (which I not only agree with but I was the one who replied challenging the claim of a fair launch before you showed up)
2. It's a cryptocurrency/blockchain that isn't Bitcoin.

And for what it is worth I also frequently tell people when they ask that non-Bitcoin cryptos are very questionable investments (with nearly all historically underperforming Bitcoin), and even Bitcoin is highly risky, so I actually agree on #2 to a large extent as well.


FFS do you read my replies? There is no hyperinflation and hasn't been for months. Total money supply growth is <9.5% per year and that includes some going back to stockholders, so the effective net inflation is lower.


This isn't true. The data is all public on the blockchain and subject to accountability, not hidden in a corporate database. The CEO can't edit your posts as happened on reddit. You can't be banned. Third parties can easily write their own user interfaces that bypass the corporate-controlled one entirely (and some have). I don't know if these differences are enough to matter, but they are certainly different from Facebook and Reddit, and mean it has something unique to offer.

It's a ponzi because you need the constant inflow of fresh blood in order to keep STEEM going and not to collapse. If you don't have enough buyers, no one will use steemit because the coins will not be worth the time. The pyramid builds up from the biggest holders down to the smallest holders with the help of proof of stake. Whales also have the power to manipulate voting thus manipulating who gets money for posting (hint: they earn the most together with their friends and inner circles). The biggest holders can keep their stake goin and power down constantly thus profiting nonstop (together with the bonus blog earnings), while the smaller fish can either sell their stake at a lower price later or simply not stake enough to cover their losses. People who invest into STEEM get almost nothing for their change, you can not pay with STEEM anywhere, there is hyperinflation and they won't get anywhere enough voting power to combat whales who mined early for peanuts. Also I want to add that no one will use STEEM when they payouts (or the price) go below a certain threshold (holders will get shaken out and earners will get demotivated), because it has nothing to offer compared to Reddit or Facebook (except money).

With Bitcoin you have to invest constantly into mining infrastructure to earn coins, thus the token has a base value (unlike with proof of stake). Bitcoin is accepted in stores and since it has a limited quantity and a low inflation (compared to the overall market cap) people will trust it as a store of value. Please don't ever compare Bitcoin (or Monero for that matter) or any proof of work coin to how STEEM works.

There is a reason why Bitcoin is going up while STEEM is doing a nosedive. One is a store of value the other is printing money out of thin air for reposting articles found everywhere on the internet for free.

Tone's crticism was long and indepth because he went over point by point on the full whitepaper, because it was so absurd.

Explain, then, why they decided to wait until after they had dumped a large portion of their coins at lower and lower prices before "fixing" the economics? The result was enormously reducing their haul, likely by millions of dollars. That makes no so sense.

What makes sense is that they actually believed the economics were okay, even good, and that the market would eventually figure it out. Or to the extent that you think it was bullshit, they believed their own bullshit. (Which I'd point out hasn't really been disproven actually, they  just threw on the towel on it once the price had dropped 97% or something.)

You're confusing it being an "unfair" launch resulting in highly concentrated holdings making it not something particularly good to buy with it being a Ponzi scheme. The two are distinct concepts.

And for the record I have never told anyone it was a good idea to buy STEEM and told several people (who specifically asked) the reasons to consider not buying it. There isn't anything wrong with using the site though, and earning coins without buying (if you feel it is worth your time).

Oh, and as for the 5x (probably more than that) longer white paper, that doesn't, at all, demonstrate they understood or understand anything. If you can't explain something briefly you probably don't understand it very well. The same goes for Tone's long-winded criticisms and markup of minutiae instead of getting to the point.

Hundreds of non economists called them out that the system is shit and that it will dump indefinitely. The economics were unsustainable from the first second and only favored the first day miners (they had 80% of the supply). This wasn't a dumb decision, this was intentionally decided. This is just the DASH instamine/premine and masternode decision over and over again, but with a different phrasing.

They intentionall done this and it isn't my belief. They managed to put together a whitepaper that is like 5x longer compared to the Bitcoin whitepaper, code together a blockchain baised social media platform and failed to calculate with economics 101?

I'm telling you again, you are either as dumb as their avg investor or you shill because you are invested. My only economics experience is from getting a BA in it 8 years ago and even to me it seemed like the worst concept ever and I was there on the launch day, I had no reason to go against it.

You can believe what you like, but to me does look like a lot was just bad decisions in designing and organizing something (on top of whatever mental blocks the appear to have, and there are quite a few, apparently it was thrown together in a pretty short period of time) that wasn't very well-received. Especially when you consider that they haven't really made much money out of it all. I'm sure they would have wanted more, and frankly being the first crypto social platform to actually launch probably could have gotten more without all the missteps.

As with most crypto projects, it seems they got a few things right and more than a few things wrong.

It was intentionally shit from the beginning favoring only the developers and 1-2 lucky few (including you). It was reworked because 99% of the crypto community was screaming scam (for a reason).

And that is why it's a scam. If they would have been so dumb to make it intentionally shit no one would have cared, but we all know the Larimers are not that dumb.

First of all, they cashed out for about 5 months, not a year (and I certainly never defended them doing so, in fact I heavily criticized it). Second of all, the hyperinflation system was always widely misunderstood, as you continue to demonstrate here. It didn't convey any particular advantage to early stakeholders as interest and inflation effectively canceled out resulting in a real interest rate near zero (though it did, by design, discourage short term speculation). Whether or not the hyperinflation existed they still would have cashed out, and arguably it hurt their efforts to doing so by having a confusing system that reduced investor demand for them to dump on, and by impairing liquidity for them to dump into.

I already read Tone's markup long ago when he posted it on Twitter. It was then, as now, riddled with clear logical and even clear factual errors. If you are basing your conclusion on that analysis, you are being led astray. What's more, it is obsolete now as the entire economic model has been reworked (though when you start out with erroneous analysis, becoming obsolete isn't particularly significant).

Anyway, I'm not sure his markup was ever posted on the thread so making it available here is a sort of contribution I suppose. People should be informed about all points of view and make up their own minds, but keep the previous paragraph in mind when doing so.

http://www.libertylifetrail.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Steemit-WP-ToneReview.pdf

Good read, give it a go, first take off those rose tinted glasses for a second.

It includes my comments aswell from 2016 May where I state that every investor will be dumped on sooner or later because of the ownership of the developers from the shady launch and the fact that they gave themselves a staking mechanism that also caused hyperinflation. Good guy devs reduced the inflation after they cashed out for almost a year. 

We will have to agree to disagree on that, and again, Dash or your views about my choices of which questions to answer are off topic.

You are more than welcome to discuss Steem in positive or negative terms but so far you haven't come up with anything except trolling using sexual references, "Tone Vays says it is a Ponzi scheme", and smooth is unfair since he doesn't helpfully answer user questions about Dash (which, BTW, I have). Do you have anything else?

My problem is you seem to have made a 180 in attitude on a project that has this many red flags just because you are invested compared to DASH where you simply never were invested. Neither project is more innovative than the other, but you are invested in one of the 2. You simply avoid thinking about this basic fact and it seems like this helps you sleep well.

I didn't see you helping the community over there.

Btw Vays argument is way more structured than your "every coin is a ponzi" one. Lmao.

I've watched his video and I found his "Ponzi" claim to be rambling and incoherent. You apparently don't understand the issue well enough to see that he didn't make a good case, or you don't care and just like the idea that he attached a label without effectively justifying it.


You can call it what you want, but I explained to you why it is no more or less a Ponzi than any other blockchain that pays block rewards. That doesn't make it a good project. I think people can make up their own minds. You don't see me here telling people that there aren't red flags nor that they should invest nor claiming that it was fairly launched nor that the distribution is favorable.

Your complaint seems to be that I answer factual questions about how the system works when people ask so whatever decisions they do make are accurately informed. Too bad. I see nothing wrong with that. You might try that in fact, since you apparently didn't know that the hyperinflation structure was replaced a while back.

I wasn't giving an explanation on why it's a ponzi scheme, if you watch Tone Vays's AMA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPUtZztgMXk) you will get a clue on why it is one. I simply stated a disgusting fact, the ponzi here has a very limited top level and it's also disturbing how that top level came to become what it is now.

This project has so many red flags it hurts and seeing you support it, duno, it's like seeing some old guy you knew half of your life going againt his life long morals. Expected you to know about the reasons why I and half the crypto scene call it a ponzi without having to explain it to you.

Ask me and I will gladly discuss why it's a ponzi with you.

Move the goalposts much? Your criticism of the launch (which I don't disagree with) has nothing to do with being a "Ponzi scheme" or not. The term actually has a definition which informally is depending on later investors to pay returns to earlier investors.

BTW, the hyperinflationary structure was replaced several months ago. The current inflation rate is a bit less than 9.5%, declining by 1/2% per year.

Smooth, you are either terribly dumb or you just shill STEEM so hard.

I'm heavily dissapointed.

As if other coins had a short POW giving out a huge supply that magically went to the devs on a shady launch and their developers also gave themselves a staking mechanism favoring large holders and giving the coin hyperinflation and a never ending freshly printed money supply. Yes. Totally. Steem doesn't differ from the rest. Hilarious.

That I'm happy to do. It is no more or less a Ponzi than any other coin that pays block rewards whether from mining or staking (or some combination/hybrid/variant). Some argue that all of these coins are Ponzis, which is fair (in the sense that appreciation, or even retaining value despite distribution of additional units, requires new investment). But it is not accurate to cherry pick which ones are or aren't Ponzis when they all work essentially the same way.

Well we actually reached the point where you couldn't legitimately defend yourself so you just summarize my points instead to fill up a response.

This wasn't off topic though, I was giving context on why you supporting STEEM can be legit considered as pleasing (Bitshares founder and scammer Dan Larimers) male genitals and it was done in the most relevant thread.

I would have really liked to watch you defend STEEM and explain to me how it isn't a ponzi and how you are actually not supporting it with taking part in the STEEM community discussions, but I guess this isn't that day. Would have been a good show watching you sink deeper.