50% of the rewards are promised as cash. 50% are promised as illiquid stake. The promised cash portion can be cashed out immediately. Nothing is an illusion.
Can't cash out and financial pyramid are not an accusation that the promises are broken. Fact is you can't cash out. Everyone is incentivized to support the pyramid longer and make it worse. It even worked on you, to get you to stop criticizing (or go soft on) DPoS because you are vested in this shitcoin. Futures contracts are the antithesis of degrees-of-freedom and truth. Even Proverbs speaks about that. The illusion is on the n00bs who don't fully grasp the ramifications of everything. Same as it was for Ethereum. If it is a pyramid scheme as you claim, and I do not think that it is, then these "n00bs" are going to make out like bandits. Market Capitalizations:Steem: $202 million versus: Facebook: $337 billion YouTube: $80 billion Twitter: $12.6 billion LinkedIn: $25.4 billion Instagram: $37.0 billion Reddit: $4.0 billion I don't believe it is a pyramid scheme, because new revenue streams pop up as the user base grows. Once you reach the levels of usership of the social networking behemoths, which is feasible considering the user incentives, the internet traffic alone can sustain the incentives indefinitely via paid advertising. The social network on Wednesday said advertising revenue jumped 57% in the first quarter to $5.2 billion from $3.3 billion.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-revenue-soars-on-ad-growth-1461787856The pyramid argument here is no different from Bitcoin or any other token that depends on people wanting to buy it for other people to be able to sell. That doesn't make it a pyramid, just a scarce token that may or may not have significant value. Mostly it has value if people expect it to be useful in the future.
This is another good point. It is no more a pyramid scheme than any other cryptocurrency in existence. |
|
|
|
@smooth
I don't see how creating an extra 9 steem out of thin air to compensate for a dropping steem price does anything to solve hyperinflation, it actually makes it a lot worse.
An example with a testCoin, you have 10 testCoins smooth has 10 testCoins. Every year 10 more new testcoins are created, you recieve 9 of them, smooth recieves none and 1 testCoin is used to pay for various jobs/works (my numbers might be a bit wrong but you get the idea) If the price falls 50% because of this inflation you are barely affected because you recieved 9 more coins. Which in turn will cause the value to drop even more. That's what happens when you keep injected more coins it makes the coins of everybody else worth less. His example was correct. The price will not drop even more. In fact 50% is overstating it. In his example the money supply has increased by 50%, meaning prices will drop by 33% all else being equal. You actually come out ahead with your 9 additional coins. You have not lost any purchasing power. Why in the example smooth receives none? AFAIK every steem power holders receives some steem proportionally to what they hold Smooth was the STEEM token holder in the example. You were the STEEM POWER token holder. |
|
|
|
The Nubits peg has been broken for at least 12 days now. It is currently at $0.258 instead of the $1.00 like it is supposed to be. It is unclear to me if they will ever regain the peg. Their main developer, the pseudonymous "Jordan Lee" has gone MIA. He was last seen on the Nubits forums 9 days ago. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence, but the Nubits/B&C Exchange community is scrambling to replace him and remedy the situation. We shall see if those efforts are successful... this thread breaks down the Nubits peg failure pretty well, and the ensuing drama that has unfolded: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/withdrawn-make-firing-and-replacing-incompetent-liquidity-providers-our-top-priority/4036At least, maybe now the Nubits camp can concede that Bitshares' bitUSD is a better solution to the same problem. It is still going strong since before September of 2014, and it is currently valued at $1.01 Nubits is back to $0.88 on bittrex and $0.79 on poloniex, so it looks to me like a recovery is in progress. You never know if something works until you test it to failure, so this makes for a vote of confidence for Nubits and it's community if the recovery continues. That is cool. I am rooting for them to succeed. I think the idea could work, but it was poorly managed. They spent way too much cash on share buy backs. If they had all the cash they spent doing that on hand, the peg might of never been lost in the first place. Hindsight is of course 20/20. There is also a new competitor- the Steem Dollar (SBD). http://www.steemdollar.com/ |
|
|
|
Sounds like the Soviet Union. Anyone who has evidence which runs contrary to wishes of the party, it's accusation of mental illness and then imprisonment at the mental asylum.  Except you don't have any evidence. Anyone that knows anything about Steemit knows you are full of it. Feel free to spread FUD, but don't deny you are doing so. Some arguments against Steem I get (everything has pros AND cons,) but the one you are pushing is as dumb as can be. |
|
|
|
The concept is great but the economics behind it are flawed. People will be in for a disapointment when they realize that the more users use steemit the less reward they are likely to get.
You don't even understand the economics judging from your posts and comments, lol. It is simple math and logic, yet you can't seem to comprehend it. How about you just answer my questions instead of ignoring them and trying to derail thread Explain how holding powered steem would protect you from hyperinflation ? I think that Smooth answered your question but you either don't get it or you intentionally ignored it, anyway. I have also answered his question three times already. He is just a troll or mentally challenged. Take your pick. |
|
|
|
The concept is great but the economics behind it are flawed. People will be in for a disapointment when they realize that the more users use steemit the less reward they are likely to get.
You don't even understand the economics judging from your posts and comments, lol. It is simple math and logic, yet you can't seem to comprehend it. |
|
|
|
Yea, since Larimer and company instamined 60, 70, 80+%, I'm sure everyone will want to do their part to make Larimer rich and soak up a few pennies in the process, which they'll be able to withdraw over the course of two years or so. If it didn't work with Bitcoin and voat, why would it work with some instamined scam token?
We have secured ~80% of the initial STEEM via mining. Our plan is to keep 20%, sell 20% to raise money, and give away 40% to attract users / referrers.
40% of it will be given to users. Notice it doesn't cost anything to register an account and you get (I think) $20 worth of tokens for doing so. 20% was necessary to fund development. Programs don't code themselves. Time is money. If the developers were not going to get paid, then it makes sense for them to do something else... like get a job. Only keeping 20% of your company from the get go is a pretty low amount of equity to keep for a start up. Especially considering it is probably split in between at least a few people. |
|
|
|
There is nothing in your post that explains how the effect of 100% inflation is offset for steem power holders
Yes there is. You are misunderstanding me. I apologize if I am not being clear, but I suggest you read the whitepaper as I have repeated myself several times already. Only STEEM inflates at 100%. STEEM POWER is awarded 9 STEEM for every 1 STEEM that is printed, which offsets inflation for STEEM POWER stakeholders to approximately 11.11%. It is simple math. 1/9 = X/100 X = 11.11 Now, if you'll please excuse me... Bitcointalk doesn't pay me for contributing so I am going back to Steemit. Cheers |
|
|
|
STEEM which is "powered up" into STEEM POWER only inflates at approximately 11.11% per year. STEEM POWER gives someone more sway in content curation (up voting and down voting, a la Reddit).
For every 1 STEEM that is printed for contribution rewards, STEEM POWER stakeholders are credited with 9 STEEM.
This doesn't make sense. How can you credit more steem than miners produce? because inflation is way higher than 11.11% and never mind developers are sitting on a huge stash. You are referring to STEEM? Yes, it inflates at 100% annually. However, it is not intended to be a long term investment. It is simply a way for long term investors to enter or exit the ecosystem. |
|
|
|
Im not sure i understand this, where does those 9 steem come from and why are they now divided ,i thought you said they were added?
9 STEEM is printed out of thin air and distributed evenly to STEEM POWER stakeholders (the long term investors) for every 1 STEEM that is printed out of thin air for contribution rewards. The only purpose of the 9 to 1 ratio is to offset the effects of inflation for long term investors. Without it long term investors would be debased by 100% annually. With it they are only debased approximately 11.11% annually. STEEM inflates at 100% annually and is not intended to be a long term hodl-type investment token. It is only meant to transfer value from one long term investor to another. In other words, it is mainly an avenue to allow people to cash in and out of the ecosystem. |
|
|
|
this is just one person or a small group artificially pumping up whats probably just another shit coin getting ready to dump.
The wonderful thing about STEEM is that a large percentage of it is held in STEEM POWER (over 90%). STEEM can immediately be converted into STEEM POWER, but STEEM POWER cannot immediately be converted into STEEM. Therefore, 90%+ of the STEEM tokens can only be dumped via 104 equal weekly payments over the course of 2 years. The volume on exchanges represents under 10% of the STEEM money supply. That is why it took such a little amount of volume to be pumped so high.... most STEEM it is locked up in STEEM POWER. Owning more STEEM POWER gives people more sway in the curation of content, while at the same time allowing them to earn bigger rewards for doing so. Owning STEEM POWER is a long term investment in the STEEM ecosystem. I suggest reading the whitepaper. They have created a very elegant ecosystem. https://steem.io/SteemWhitePaper.pdfAlternatively, there is a lot of information linked here: https://steemit.com/wikiversity/@boardwalk-steem/lets-start-a-steemit-resource-repository |
|
|
|
STEEM which is "powered up" into STEEM POWER only inflates at approximately 11.11% per year. STEEM POWER gives someone more sway in content curation (up voting and down voting, a la Reddit).
For every 1 STEEM that is printed for contribution rewards, STEEM POWER stakeholders are credited with 9 STEEM.
This doesn't make sense. How can you credit more steem than miners produce? STEEM is autonomously printed to cover contribution rewards, steem power rewards, and SMD operations. Miners are paid out of the same pool of money as content contributors, curation contributors, etc. These rewards combined amount to approximately 11.11% inflation per year. (the exact amount of inflation fluctuates depending on many different factors) Here is how the 11.11% is divided up: Contribution Rewards:
- Curation rewards: 1 STEEM per block or 3.875% per year, whichever is greater
- Content Creation rewards: 1 STEEM per block or 3.875% per year, whichever is greater
- Block production rewards: 1 STEEM per block or 0.750% per year, whichever is greater
- POW inclusion rewards before block 864,000: 1 STEEM per block (awarded as 21 STEEM per round)
- POW inclusion rewards after block 864,000: 0.0476 STEEM per block (awarded as 1 STEEM per round) or 0.750% per year, whichever is greater.
- Liquidity rewards: 1 STEEM per block (awarded as 1200 STEEM per hour) or 0.750% per year, whichever is greater
Power Rewards:
- Steem Power rewards: For each STEEM created by the above rewards, 9 STEEM are divided among all Steem Power holders.
SMD operations:
- SMD rewards: A percentage of SMD value is created at an APR set by the witnesses and paid to SMD holders as SMD
- Feed Rate following: The amount of STEEM for which the total SMD in existence can be redeemed will change based on changes in the price feed. This change is effectively destruction ("burning") of STEEM when the value of STEEM (as measured by the feed) is increasing, or creation of STEEM when the value of STEEM (as measured by the feed) is declining.
I would also like to point out that although STEEM POWER stakeholders are debased by approximately 11.11% per year, they also have the ability to work for (or contribute and earn) a portion of the inflation for the contribution rewards. It is possible to reduce or negate the inflation by simply participating in the ecosystem. Also, when the value of STEEM rises it reduces or negates the effects of inflation as well. |
|
|
|
Where does it say that there is 100% inflation every year? I think you might be mistaken. Can you post the link?
STEEM inflates at 100% per year. That is why STEEM is not a long term investment. STEEM's main use is simply to transfer ownership from one long term investor to another. I consider STEEM's secondary use as being a liquid asset in the STEEM DOLLAR decentralized exchange. STEEM which is "powered up" into STEEM POWER only inflates at approximately 11.11% per year. STEEM POWER gives someone more sway in content curation (up voting and down voting, a la Reddit). For every 1 STEEM that is printed for contribution rewards, STEEM POWER stakeholders are credited with 9 STEEM. That is a 9 to 1 ratio, hence approximately 11.11% inflation per year. You ask how this is sustainable? I point to the fact that almost all cryptocurrencies are inflationary, but misleadingly advertise themselves as being deflationary. Take for instance Bitcoin... from the Steem whitepaper: For the first 2 years of Bitcoin’s life the network sustained an annual inflation rate of over 100%. For the first 5 years it was over 30%, and for the first 8 years it was over 10%. According to the tool for estimating future inflation included with the Steem source code, Steem by contrast will achieve an instantaneous annual rate of approximately 12% after just 1 year (not including the effects of SMD operations).
Steem is inflating at approximately the same speed as Bitcoin did in the first 8 years of its life. However, I posit that Steem can grow much more quickly than Bitcoin considering society's love for social networking. Paying society to participate in a social network just throws more fuel on the fire. Consider the recent network trends as possible evidence of explosive growth: https://steemle.com/charts.phpEven my mom has registered for Steemit and is blogging, but I can not for the life of me get her to use Bitcoin or Litecoin (although she does hodl). |
|
|
|
It would literally take you many years to withdraw that money ... Anyone want to wait 50 years to get their money out of Steemit?  I would like to point out that it is clear the OP does not understand how Steem contribution rewards work. You get 50% of your contribution rewards in around 24 hours via SBD, which is immediately tradeable for STEEM/BTC/FIAT/etc. You can get the other 50% via 104 equal weekly payments over the course of 2 years. Obviously, the OP is exaggeratingly misleading. Maybe I am an old, but I would not consider 2 years as being "many years", and to state it may take 50 years is preposterous. |
|
|
|
Business model: convert investors into social networking workers.
Doesn't seem viable to me.
Legacy social networks convert users into "social networking workers" without offering any compensation at all. It is not much of a stretch to think that people can be incentivized to do so. |
|
|
|
So I just became aware of this concept of token-powered decentralized social networks tonight and am doing some research. I see two main contenders: Synereo and Steem. When all factors are considered: fairness to content creators, ease of use for lurkers, fairness of mining... which one do you think will win the impending war of decentralized social media?
I think the question is impossible to answer because nothing that is out there now, even in terms of comprehensible plans that are vaporware, has a feature set or model that could become very popular. Well at least as far as I can see thus far (but I am not omniscient). I did some initial analysis of Steem (read the entire thread). Your (and Erlich Bachman's) conclusion that Steem is a bad investment is based on a generalization that shareholders will be debased. While it is true that if you simply invest in Steem and do not participate in the ecosystem that you will be debased, your conclusion does not consider that Steem investors can participate in the ecosystem and negate that debasement. Investors can earn rewards for content creation, content curation, and by providing liquidity in the Steem Dollar market. Furthermore, since Steem dollars earn interest, if you didn't want to do any work, then you could simply buy up some Steem dollars and earn more interest than any legacy banking savings account or CD. Even if someone were to invest in simply SP and not participate in the ecosystem, it is possible that the social network grows exponentially and it ends up being a good investment anyways. In fact, IMO, recent trends indicate that is more likely than simply possible: https://steemle.com/charts.phpIn conclusion, your blanket assessment that Steem is a poor investment is faulty, because it depends on how you plan to invest (Steem, SD,or SP) and how much work you are willing to put in to earn rewards from participating in the ecosystem. |
|
|
|
|
How is this even a question? One is vaporware (Synereo) and the other actually exists as advertised and is working (Steem).
Say what you will about Dan (and company,) but he is a smart guy and can spit out code like no other. Many other "promising" projects seem to be perpetual vaporware or exist but are mostly useless. Steem exists and functions as advertised in the whitepaper. Dan has written many smart contracts that actually work from Bitshares to Steem, with no "hacks" like Ethereum. He has a proven development track record.
Steem is now developing a decentralized market and private messaging to go along with its social media platform. I think this is one coin that could attract the masses.
I will revisit the question if/when Synereo releases something, but until then the answer is clear. Anyone that says otherwise is blinded by special interest (for the record I only own about $3 in SP/SD I earned from participating on Steemit.) As soon as I have some extra cash I will be purchasing some SP.
|
|
|
|
He recently speaks very fondly of Waves and Lisk. All coins of which have been pumped hard by sock puppets on the forums lately... He is a long time religious supporter of NEM. Which... wait for it... sharedropped 100% of the original distribution to Bitcointalk users. I wonder how many users he was able to get in the NEM sharedrop? Moneroman88 and FromAbove both sleep and post on the forums around the same time time of the day:  Sorry to triple post, but DunningKruger's post reminded me about CfA... I really hate people who utilize sock puppets. It ruins the usefulness and quality of the conversations on these forums. |
|
|
|
You can see that the day ComeFrom signed up here, he also signed up 4 sock puppets. He changed his name from Come-From-Above since then to simply ComeFrom. I would speculate that he did so to try and cover up when he was previously exposed, and that he has tendencies to make sock puppets. Most of the other Come-* users are most likely him as well. See image:  He has been smarter about it since I tied a lot of his identities together a while back. He now chooses random names, and doesn't sign them up all at the same time. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
