Let's try this again.

The analysis of this bizarre design is somewhat complex. (The following is for the eventual case when current very high rate of minting of STEEM will reduce as a percentage of the money supply)

https://steem.io/SteemWhitePaper.pdf#page=35

• 100% of the money supply is minted yearly, but this is not all debasement.
• 10% of the money supply minted yearly paid out to various parties (77.5% of the 10% paid to blogging and curation rewards, which is 7.75% of the money supply).
• 90% (9X the prior item) of the money supply minted yearly paid proportionally to STEEM POWER (SP) holders (which is equivalent to a forward stock split, if SP supply is exactly 9 × STEEM supply, else +/- variable interest rate).
• STEEM holders are debased 100% yearly, because 100% new supply created yearly and nothing is paid to STEEM holders.
• If STEEM holders don't power up (and SP holders aren't powering down), SP holders are debased approximately (100% × (1 ÷ 9)) + (7.75% ÷ 2) =  15% yearly (because half of the 7.75% is paid as SP, which increases the ratio of SP to STEEM to greater than 9[1].).
• If STEEM holders don't power up and all SP holders are powering down, SP holders are debased very roughly 15% - (43.875 ÷ 2)% ≈  -7% yearly, i.e. a 7% positive compounding interest rate.
• If all STEEM holders power up immediately (and SP holders aren't powering down), SP holders are debased approximately (100% × (1 ÷ 9)) + 10% =  21% yearly.
• If STEEM holders don't power up and all SP holders are powering down, approximately 90% + (7.75% ÷ 2) - 50% = 43.875% of the money supply is held as SP.
• If STEEM holders don't power up (and SP holders aren't powering down), approximately 90% + (7.75% ÷ 2) = 93.875% of the money supply is held as SP.

The fairly low debasement rate of SP, means the "pre"-mine insiders will control the money supply for years to come.

It appears to me (in the bullish scenario) the economics incentives encourage most all STEEM to be powered up with some % of the SP being powered down over 104 weekly disbursements and (some % of the 10% STEEM created yearly) immediately being sold at an exchange then powered back up again. So the liquidity will range up to 67% of the money supply yearly, but it can be in the low single digit percentages while the users (investors) are ramping up their SP holdings before initiating the powering downs.

[1]	When the ratio is above 9, the 9 SP created for every 1 STEEM, is a negative interest rate (instead of a forward stock split) which debases the SP by the difference of ratio minus 9 (normalized to 100% yearly minting).

Note that when and while the curation rewards are disabled, then the numbers change as follows (and again assuming the eventual case):

• 92.5% of the money supply is minted yearly, but this is not all debasement.
• 9.25% of the money supply minted yearly paid out to various parties (83.8% of the 9.25% paid to blogging and curation rewards, which is 7.75% of the money supply).
• 83.25% (9X the prior item) of the money supply minted yearly paid proportionally to STEEM POWER (SP) holders (which is equivalent to a forward stock split, if SP supply is exactly 9 × STEEM supply, else +/- variable interest rate).
• STEEM holders are debased 92.5% yearly, because 92.5% new supply created yearly and nothing is paid to STEEM holders.
• If STEEM holders don't power up (and SP holders aren't powering down), SP holders are debased approximately (100% × (1 ÷ 9)) + (7.75% ÷ 2 ÷ 0.925) =  15.3% yearly.
• If STEEM holders don't power up and all SP holders are powering down, SP holders are debased very roughly 15.3% - (44.175 ÷ 2)% ≈  -6.8% yearly, i.e. a ~7% positive compounding interest rate.
• If all STEEM holders power up immediately (and SP holders aren't powering down), SP holders are debased approximately (100% × (1 ÷ 9)) + (9.25 ÷ 0.925)% =  21% yearly.
• If STEEM holders don't power up and all SP holders are powering down, approximately 90% + (7.75% ÷ 2 ÷ 0.925) - 50% = 44.175% of the money supply is held as SP.
• If STEEM holders don't power up (and SP holders aren't powering down), approximately 90% + (7.75% ÷ 2 ÷ 0.925) = 94.175% of the money supply is held as SP.

Edit: Note the exponential quality of this design (excluding the 7% compounding scenario enumerated above) is the 92.5 - 100% yearly minting of new money supply. And apparently also a pressure for the price to increase at the start as most are powering up. Thus the market capitalization could become a $10 - 100s of billion bubble before the powering down kicks in and the bubble pops. This would pay for $billion of blogging rewards yearly!

So the 90% compounding scenario I outlined originally is actually still the case in the bullish scenario!

And unless they are able to create a sustained transaction (aka transfers) use case demand for the STEEM token, eventually the bubble will crash as the SP powers down en masse. If they can created a sustained transaction use case demand, then it will peak and fall but find an equilibrium.

One potential flaw I see if that (in the non-bullish scenario) long-term investors may be hesitant to invest because they must power up, but they may not feel confident they can power down with perfect timing. And holding STEEM is debased at 92.5 or 100% yearly. Lack of demand to purchase STEEM could cause the price to be on a downtrend, thus denying the creation of a bubble and the growth in funding for blogging rewards. A declining price might encourage powering down and not powering up, thus reversing my assumption above about the economic incentives.

I am thinking this design has basically eliminated the medium-term speculation case. Investors must choose between holding STEEM for weeks only, or SP for 2 years (1 year weighted average of cashing out price).

Rapid increase of STEEM transactions (aka transfers, not Steem activity) would probably give long-term investors more confidence.

i did created 3 accounts, in everyone posts with different topics,
getting 5-9 upvotes each (i dont vote from other accounts)
and every account has not more than 0.10$ pending payout, every account has 10-20posts total..in few days
and still nothing... i know some not very valuable posts, but some really not bad, at least not worst than most who gets 300-1000$ in pending payouts some of them even first 10mins.

im not trying to troll, but every day... that steemit.com project looks more like big scam, not a real... i there big concetration of accounts who bought steem power and now voting for them selves , from one account to another an so on..

first a was really exited about this project, but now...

his not gonna work, at least for those who bought steem and locked up for 2years

Bytemaster, What did you ever do with your 14k btc for your crappy youtube video?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=697.0

Can I request that you release your companies 3 year financial projections along with your current balance sheet? I would like to think this shouldn't be a problem since your asking for public funding....

I think a part of the revenues (about 20% or so) of BitTeaser will also go into Obits.
or am I wrong?

I have a more serous question about this project. As far as I understand it the only real innovation is the community DAO, which by itself is not really that innovative at all, there are other projects that have already done this.

However as far as I understand it, this is being presented as an alternative to Ethereum. I do not see what is wrong with Ethereum however since its launch was fair. Ethereum still requires a lot of development work, and I do not see how this project will be able to overtake the network effect and development that Ethereum has. I am even wondering if Expanse will be able to keep up with updating when Ethereum is updated and changed.

Furthermore I do not think that the governance of Ethereum is necessarily flawed. If you really wanted to tackle that problem there should have been a allotment in the block reward that allocates a certain percentage to Expanse funding which would then have to be voted upon by some process. Dash and Bitshares are both examples of such a process. Having a singular pre-mine like this which is supposedly decided upon by the community, with such a small group of founders, and small community I do not necessarily see that working out well.

I do not see any type of great innovation or need that this project is filling, besides maybe peoples greed wanting to jump onto the "next Ethereum" as Ethereum is currently going parabolic.

So yes I am here critiquing this cryptocurrency. Please correct me if I am wrong with a convincing argument and I might even invest myself.

Well, i think the real problem bitshare will have to face soon if this project conitues growing is the legal problem, there are not actually a clear legislation about cryptos, it is a real danger, some day we can wake up with financial authorities attacking Bitshares, probably the smart way for avoid it woul be look for a "friendly" jurisdiction if not it is only a time question

I do have a solution, but a dumb fucking pleb such as myself doesn't need you, but for everyone else:  it's called USD - yeah, they are new and come in both physical and digital form.  They are the perfect peg for those wanting to hedg their cryptocurrency holdings with fiat currencies such as the USD.



Now remind me why BitUSD isn't an inherently useless asset, that borderline a on scam, let alone running an unlicensed and uninsured securities exchange (because that's exactly what assets on BitShare are), and the fact we have no way of speaking with the team's lawyers to request LEGALLY REQUIRED paperwork upon request regarding an investor prospectus.

Kthbai.

Saying it's still within 5% and of course explaining that premiums occur during certain markets is by definition not a pegged asset.  The concept is incredibly simple.

It's heavy to compare trustless BitUSD with NuBits, Tether systems.

But if your compare NuBits and Tether acording CMC data the Tether looks much better.

What do you mean?  Are you saying that people were supposed to stop selling something that they had, that was still being bought on exchanges?  Why would they stop?




Dan did control PTS, and he held PTS.  He could have shut it down by requiring a coin swap.  Then no exchange would continue to list PTS, because there would be no coins to sell.  

Instead of shutting it down, he let himself keep all his PTS.  Then, amazingly, "someone" gave Dan millions of extra PTS, and then "someone" dumped millions of PTS on the market so the price went from .002BTC to .00000125BTC in 7 days (December 13 to December 20).




Yes, there is widespread confusion regarding what actions have been taken and why.




But he gave them mostly to himself.  And they're not to reward people - they're to control and threaten people, and to get more money for Dan and Stan.





Out of 8 million Brownie PTS, Dan kept 4 million for himself.  Then he "distributed" 4 million to his brother, the other devs, his friends, and people who became obligated to give him something in return;  only ~ 50 actual people from the community received shares, and some of them got a total of 333 Brownie PTS.

So what you mean is "one of the partners decided to give a huge percentage of the free coins to Dan and Stan."





How do you know they weren't meant for sharedrops?  Because they told you?

If they weren't meant for it, do you think it's a coincidence that Dan "accidentally" got a bunch of money out of it?

If they weren't meant for it, why did Dan spend 5000BTS to register them as a User Issued Asset?  For fun?  OH WOW, but then he also got 10% of the entire supply of Identibit!  How lucky for him, and he didn't even plan it!


Just like Dan "didn't want PTS to continue, but then someone gave him millions of extra shares."
Now Dan "didn't want BrowniePTS to be sharedropped, but then someone gave him millions of extra Identibit."


Brownie PTS was announced July 2, and on August 12 Identibit announced it was sharedropping to Brownie PTS.  It is self-evident that Brownie PTS was entirely a way for Dan to get more money for himself, and that he worked together with Identibit to get more for himself through Brownie PTS.

What do you mean?  Are you saying that people were supposed to stop selling something that they had, that was still being bought on exchanges?  Why would they stop?