Creating even a half-assed clone of Steem would probably net me way more than $200k. You could, but saying it before you do it is like the Great Oz going, "You see that curtain, I'm gonna go stand behind it an create illusions.  |
|
|
|
Are they seriously abandoning their account to make comments on reddit that will never earn them a cent or collect curator rewards on another site that doesn't yet exist? Steemit is the only game in town (that pays in something other than karma hugs) and likely the payout today will increase over time if the site is successful--so either these people are irrational or full of shit.
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 payouts are not important to most users. That's even worse as facebook is a data whore, which pickpockets marketing data on your way out the door, "Excuse me Madam, did you see my wallet?" Pulling up her stockings, "We, no! But might you be interested in a fine gold watch?" "No, thanks -- If you'll just kindly give back my ID, I'll go." As far as payouts go, you can't have it both ways. Users can't simultaneously hate the payout scheme and not care about it. They can act like both, but the reality is a degree of one or the other. |
|
|
|
It is a lot of work to create a social networking site with a rich enough feature set to attract users outside of some highly motivated demographic.
Looks to me that Steem is getting mostly people who know someone affiliated with blockchains and/or are trend followers and early adopters of new ways to make money online.
To cross that chasm to be able to have viral spread of any user on facebook, requires you have a much more rich feature set than Steem has now. Most users would come to Steem and not find any thing interesting to them, nor any activity they are interested to do.
It is not easy and they have a lot of work ahead of them.
And any competitor will have huge amount of work ahead and catch up.
And there is no guarantee of gaining mass adoption. It is not clear that this model of paying most users nearly nothing and a few others large rewards adds anything to social networking that users really want and need.
I am thinking will need more enticement to cross the chasm. People basically use social networking for relationships and other things that interest and entertain them. The activity value is probably more important than any payout, unless you can really replace their day job, but can you with this model?
The model that might work is the professional bloggers earn a great income on the site, then the other users come there for them and the community. But so far, I don't see what sort of trend developing on Steem, but it is early still.
While I don't necessarily disagree with this analysis, I think it's too specific. I want to see exit polling data. From the few rage quit posts I've read, it sound like the same threatening tone of #7: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@generalizethis/a-shitcoiner-s-guide-to-shitcoin-logicAre they seriously abandoning their account to make comments on reddit that will never earn them a cent or collect curator rewards on another site that doesn't yet exist? Steemit is the only game in town (that pays in something other than karma hugs) and likely the payout today will increase over time if the site is successful--so either these people are irrational or full of shit. There are plenty of metrics that could help measure this, but I'd like to see the stats for incoming and outgoing users who have validated their account--these are people who are serious and who you can be fairly sure are real--though I did see a couple of guys with more than one introduceyourself post yesterday (some will try to game this as everyone knows this is where good money is being focused, and with good reason). |
|
|
|
Quality of content is subjective. I'm sure you could lower that same barrel at BCT or reddit and blast away.
And I would. Don't you agree ? Being subjective is ok. Steem will be a faint figment of imagination in 12 months IMO. Egh. It's user created, so there's that. I think as long as you can find rooms that fit your interest and level of understanding, intelligence, and fits your personality, that the content will be of value for you. And given how many forums cater well to their user's tastes, it shouldn't be hard for steem to replicate that effect if they allow for forums to develop and adopt their own form of self-moderation. If they try to use a one size fits all approach without the tools to personalize the experience for each group, then yes, I would think it will be a faint memory in a year (but why would they do that?). |
|
|
|
Maybe but STEEM doesn't seem to have capitalized very well on the first mover advantage. The quality of its content is quite poor.
Somebody like Medium should consider monetizing its content with its own alt.
Quality of content is subjective. I'm sure you could lower that same barrel at BCT or reddit and blast away. All three are well targeted to their usership market. BCT caters to interactive discussion of CC. Reddit caters to interactive discussion on any topic someone wants to talk about, but often acrimonious so it is more appealing to males. Steemit caters to delusional blocknerds who think they discovered the Holy Grail of social networking. And the content reflects that. Writing about all kinds of shit that nobody else in the world is at all interested to read. It is backslapping congratulatory crap mixed with me-too travel blogs and other crap that nobody is interested to read. I've been interested to read only because I want to understand the demographic and the system. I haven't read much content that I would have been interested to read otherwise. Well there was one post there by Dan about DAOs that was very interesting to me even there was no Steemit to research. There might be content I am interested in, but finding it appears to be difficult. And you know I have complained that I think their ranking system is not working well. My guess is that communities will develop and reputations will emerge--I'm trying to get a group of poets to check it out, but I'm terrible at selling. I try to give thoughtful analysis and let others play cheerleader. Though, the photo contest is generating some good content. |
|
|
|
No barrier to entry for competitors, therefore no long term intrinsic value, therefore a speculative vehicle only.
Disagree with that to some extent as uber showed that user retention creates network effects--GM is having to pay to play in that market since uber's strategy decimated lyft and sidecar. How many users are retained is the question, which leads me to use the phrase "...to some extent." Maybe but STEEM doesn't seem to have capitalized very well on the first mover advantage. The quality of its content is quite poor. Somebody like Medium should consider monetizing its content with its own alt. Quality of content is subjective. I'm sure you could lower that same barrel at BCT or reddit and blast away. |
|
|
|
Could someone give me some explanation as to why anyone would convert BTC to STEEM POWER? (not STEEM which is debased 92.5% to 100% yearly)
arhag's (currently #1 ranked) post summarizes some of the thinking, and also I'd suggest my comment there for a bit of elaboration. In essence Steem Power is a prepaid subscription to network access. By stocking up on Steem Power now you are speculating that access to the network will be worth more to more people in the future, who will then be clamoring to buy tiny slices of your Steem Power to get in or to maintain their access. Obviously, that is a very risky bet (all cryptos are, including Bitcoin). https://steemit.com/steem/@arhag/where-does-the-money-come-from-a-look-into-the-economics-of-steemYou are basically going long for 2 years... in a crypto currency. Seems extremely stupid to me. Average of one year, assuming you start liquidating right away, but still, I agree, it is a very risky bet. Price weighted average, but you wouldn't be able to decide when to sell. You'd be pre-deciding to sell early (or late). You can sell your account too, probably at a reduced rate (though it would depend on your standing in the community). @smooth, how long do curator's get payment on posts? Just want to know if that figures into the analysis. I'd love to see a market for selling accounts develop. But since you can't transfer SP, then it means you really can't sell them in a secure way. So no such liquid market will develop. You basically have to trust someone to let them have your account and change the password. Someone has to go first and take all the risk. Curation income is not worth anyone's time at only 3.875% of their holdings per year. Looks like there's an opt-out option available--though seems like your on your own on how to work out the details of any sale. https://steemit.com/blockchain/@dan/does-blockchain-security-need-to-be-completely-reworkedBut then there's this from another post: "Selling / Transferring Accounts" "Under this system it is still possible to transfer accounts. You must either notify your recovery partner of the change or change the recovery partner. Transfers can be instant if you both trust the recovery partner, or they can take 30 days if you don't trust the recovery partner." https://steemit.com/blockchain/@dan/steemit-releases-groundbreaking-account-recovery-solution |
|
|
|
No barrier to entry for competitors, therefore no long term intrinsic value, therefore a speculative vehicle only.
Disagree with that to some extent as uber showed that user retention creates network effects--GM is having to pay to play in that market since uber's strategy decimated lyft and sidecar. How many users are retained is the question, which leads me to use the phrase "...to some extent." |
|
|
|
Could someone give me some explanation as to why anyone would convert BTC to STEEM POWER? (not STEEM which is debased 92.5% to 100% yearly)
arhag's (currently #1 ranked) post summarizes some of the thinking, and also I'd suggest my comment there for a bit of elaboration. In essence Steem Power is a prepaid subscription to network access. By stocking up on Steem Power now you are speculating that access to the network will be worth more to more people in the future, who will then be clamoring to buy tiny slices of your Steem Power to get in or to maintain their access. Obviously, that is a very risky bet (all cryptos are, including Bitcoin). https://steemit.com/steem/@arhag/where-does-the-money-come-from-a-look-into-the-economics-of-steemYou are basically going long for 2 years... in a crypto currency. Seems extremely stupid to me. Average of one year, assuming you start liquidating right away, but still, I agree, it is a very risky bet. Price weighted average, but you wouldn't be able to decide when to sell. You'd be pre-deciding to sell early (or late). You can sell your account too, probably at a reduced rate (though it would depend on your standing in the community). @smooth, how long do curator's get payment on posts? Just want to know if that figures into the analysis. |
|
|
|
Steemit's strategy should be to create competition between content providers--which is what I think they are doing.
Disagree. The strategy should be to match content to content consumers in a harmonious and mutually uplifting social experience. Not a cutthroat one-size-fits-all groupthink dominated by blocknerds. "Idealism, hi! Meet, nature." Ethereum met nature, and Bruce Wanker explained it. Remember I was stating from the beginning what wouldn't work and everybody was so happy to ignore me. You and Roach nailed Eth to the wall and I acknowledge it in that thread. But this is a different animal, current centralization doesn't necessarily impede what it is trying to accomplish--though there are a lot of complex factors at play. What I'm telling people in my life is to, "sign-up, if you have a talent to express, express and hopefully get a payout, and then reinvest the reward. " Anyone investing their life savings or kid's college fund is an idiot--this is angel investment level risk and success rates for that are 1 in 10, 1 in 15? The point of angel investing is that the payoffs are ridiculous and warrant the associated risk. |
|
|
|
Steemit's strategy should be to create competition between content providers--which is what I think they are doing.
Disagree. The strategy should be to match content to content consumers in a harmonious and mutually uplifting social experience. Not a cutthroat one-size-fits-all groupthink dominated by blocknerds. "Idealism, hi! Meet, nature." |
|
|
|
Now, here's the thing no one is talking about. Now companies can offer cheap bounties for creative content and get cheaper rates because it is a global competition with a global payment system.
I see nothing new there. I see no features coded for that. Vaporware. Please address my statement in bold text above. The bolded is the billion dollar question. If you could answer it, you could make a fortune on steem futures. I'm betting house money on the house, you're talking about a time investment, much easier for me to decide given the circumstances. |
|
|
|
Companies play the do or die risk game, sometimes they win and sometimes they lose, Apple's done it a few times, Musk has played that game as well as anyone, investors take that risk every day, so to say that it is "Far too risky" is wrong--the most they can risk is everything and investors have taken that pledge year after year after year....
A perfect plan does not exist, you need adaptable and good enough.
Any investor who is investing while Steem is ostensibly hiding the attrition rate data (by failing to produce it), is I think not a professional investor. When Steem publishes the full data for us to analyze without having to go write some blockchain analysis tool, then we can have a more rational discussion about the perspective investors are likely to take. Also there is no competitor to Steem yet, for investors to choose between. Given a choice between an illiquid lockup of 2 years, or a liquid investment with less debasement and a better overall model, then investors might act rationally.  A rational investor will realize that it is probably an angel investment that is hit or miss and that waiting for competition to arrive isn't very rational. I said given a choice of competitors. I didn't say anything about waiting. Reading comprehension please, so you don't bloat my post count today. I appreciated your prior posts playing devil's advocate. I need that. They would have to wait to be given the opportunity, so it was less misreading and more inferring the obvious (just sayin'). Now, here's the thing no one is talking about. Now companies can offer cheap bounties for creative content and get cheaper rates because it is a global competition with a global payment system. |
|
|
|
Companies play the do or die risk game, sometimes they win and sometimes they lose, Apple's done it a few times, Musk has played that game as well as anyone, investors take that risk every day, so to say that it is "Far too risky" is wrong--the most they can risk is everything and investors have taken that pledge year after year after year....
A perfect plan does not exist, you need adaptable and good enough.
Any investor who is investing while Steem is ostensibly hiding the attrition rate data (by failing to produce it), is I think not a professional investor. When Steem publishes the full data for us to analyze without having to go write some blockchain analysis tool, then we can have a more rational discussion about the perspective investors are likely to take. Also there is no competitor to Steem yet, for investors to choose between. Given a choice between an illiquid lockup of 2 years, or a liquid investment with less debasement and a better overall model, then investors might act rationally. A rational investor will realize that it is probably an angel investment that is hit or miss and that waiting for competition to arrive isn't very rational. |
|
|
|
I know you are excited to find a blockchain app that you can use for writing and expression("get rich instantly" deluded groupthink). But there is no way the world is going to adopt a blockchain 80% owned by the Larimers Incorporated. Also I think I have explained that the incentive for long-term investors is not very good, because they must lockup their investment for 2 years and there is as yet no clarity on how this exponential debasement model will ever be funded. I think you are failing to realize that secure, and fast, distribution of tokens between content creators (whether they're on steemit or not) is what breaks this open--you posted https://steemit.com/steemit/@anonymint/it-s-so-easy-to-become-a-millionaire-with-steem , so don't pin the get-rich-quick-mind-fuck on me. As I've wrote numerous times, I'm playing with house money and am happy to do so without ever investing a dime. The point of my blog was absolutely not "get rich quick". It was to appease those who were only getting small payouts and explain that with 5 years of methodical blogging, you'd probably end up wealthy if Steem doesn't fail due to some other reason. I have since done more in depth analysis of the math of Steem variables and to me it looks very unattractive for long-term investors to buy STEEM POWER. It is not yet clear how investors would be rewarded by fast transfers of STEEM between content creators. There is no mechanism to transfer value to the investors, except I guess if demand for STEEM becomes so very great then the ratio of SP to STEEM will drop much below 9, then the SP holders would be earning a compounding interest rate per the recent math I showed. But we are talking about needing $10 billions of transactional demand yearly for STEEM within a few years. There is no mechanism in the Steem protocol to scale back rewards on blogging other than to decrease the price and shrink the market capitalization. So if the rate of transaction growth can't keep up, then the price must drop. That is a very bad deal for long-term investors. Far too risky. It is a fatal error. Not to mention that the Larimers Incorporated have taken too big of a share of the pie. Companies play the do or die risk game, sometimes they win and sometimes they lose, Apple's done it a few times, Musk has played that game as well as anyone, investors take that risk every day, so to say that it is "Far too risky" is wrong--the most they can risk is everything and investors have taken that pledge year after year after year.... A perfect plan does not exist, you need adaptable and good enough. |
|
|
|
I am trying to think of a name for: A very finely grained like-mindness, crowd rating system. With rewards to those who produce highly ranked content within like-minded coteries.
Is eSteem the best name for that? Zuckerberg called it facesmash--but missed that it wasn't that users were rating girls "they knew", but that their ratings determined the outcome and gave them control of the outcome. He Also didn't monetize it, but tried to backend advertising schemes on it years later to the disappointment of his base (who were quite happy with free popularity grabs). I named it coopital: https://www.namecheap.com/domains/whois/results.aspx?domain=coopital.orgBut I think there might be a catchier name. Like steemit? The lead's there, anything you start will hinge on its failure, rather than it being supplanted by a better, but still similar, implementation. You also have to consider that a hundred other developers are chomping at the bit if this things looks the slightest bit wobbly. But putting all that aside, what is coopital? I was thinking captcha.com would be catchy, but it's owned--though captcha.club is 59.99 and not so terrible. Coopital is name for a cooperative DAO concept. Btw, I just registered: flockwi.se But I don't think it is best name I could come up with for a STEEM competitor. I decided to register it as it could also be a better name than coopital for a DAO like concept. The wisdom of the crowd is the concept behind Steem. But there is a catchier (shorter than Steemit) name, I just can't mention it yet, because we are negotiating the price. Steem's design is failing now I think. You just can't see it because you can't see the attrition rate and you also can't see if long-term investors are buying STEEM POWER. Even if the attrition rate is reasonable and long-term investors are buying STEEM POWER (and I don't mean users converting their payout STEEM to STEEM POWER, I mean BTC traded for STEEM powered up to STEEM POWER), there are a lot of people who did not get into Steem early enough and there was 80% mined to a few people. So many people are probably eager for something more fairly launched and especially if it has design that is doesn't debase medium-term investors by 100% per year. Egh. Facebook's strategy was to go to the most prestigious universities first and create exclusivity (therefore demand), Steemit's strategy should be to create competition between content providers--which is what I think they are doing. One big name and this goes viral--why would that name enter the arena while they are in beta? That would be terrible planning. Work out the bugs, grab headlines and build from there. The great BTC nerdom is impressed that cute girls are signing up, how do you think they'll react when Beyoncé makes a post? I'm sure what your thinking is better, but unless you can go back in time with a team, you're probably out of luck. But, please, please, if you go forward let your gf pick a name or something--they're never that great. You over think them. |
|
|
|
I know you are excited to find a blockchain app that you can use for writing and expression("get rich instantly" deluded groupthink). But there is no way the world is going to adopt a blockchain 80% owned by the Larimers Incorporated. Also I think I have explained that the incentive for long-term investors is not very good, because they must lockup their investment for 2 years and there is as yet no clarity on how this exponential debasement model will ever be funded. I think you are failing to realize that secure, and fast, distribution of tokens between content creators (whether they're on steemit or not) is what breaks this open--you posted https://steemit.com/steemit/@anonymint/it-s-so-easy-to-become-a-millionaire-with-steem , so don't pin the get-rich-quick-mind-fuck on me. As I've wrote numerous times, I'm playing with house money and am happy to do so without ever investing a dime. |
|
|
|
i wouldnt be surprised if posts like that in the nearby future introduce a downvote function in steem There already is, but you have to pay the piper. 
|
|
|
|
I am trying to think of a name for: A very finely grained like-mindness, crowd rating system. With rewards to those who produce highly ranked content within like-minded coteries.
Is eSteem the best name for that? Zuckerberg called it facesmash--but missed that it wasn't that users were rating girls "they knew", but that their ratings determined the outcome and gave them control of the outcome. He Also didn't monetize it, but tried to backend advertising schemes on it years later to the disappointment of his base (who were quite happy with free popularity grabs). I named it coopital: https://www.namecheap.com/domains/whois/results.aspx?domain=coopital.orgBut I think there might be a catchier name. Like steemit? The lead's there, anything you start will hinge on its failure, rather than it being supplanted by a better, but still similar, implementation. You also have to consider that a hundred other developers are chomping at the bit if this things looks the slightest bit wobbly. But putting all that aside, what is coopital? I was thinking captcha.com would be catchy, but it's owned--though captcha.club is 59.99 and not so terrible. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
