 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
Winklevoss ETF the 10th of January right?
 Has the ETF been approved? What's up on 10th of january? Im out of the loop |
|
|
|
why are people weary of it?
Because most people don't like change. Ans also because some people fail to see the bigger picture, they think every transactions in the world should be stored in the blockchain. How silly? You must seriously lack some vision to think something that stupid. |
|
|
|
The whole point of the long power down period was to prevent the hyper inflated steem from being dumped on the market.
Now they will reduce the inflation down a lot and gradually decrease inflation over the years which will make the token scarce so there is really no point to lock people for 2 years. You guys seem worried now that the price is going to crash but when it went from $4 to $0.1 didn't seem worried at all lol
But the prior inflation is going to released all at once on all of us. You can't simply erase what was already inflated all at once. Too many people holding tokens which they got for nearly free. No investment case. Dumping, dumping, dumping clusterfuckfest coming. Auroracoin is good example of what will happen. If they want to get rid of their share at this price, i say their loss. At least we will see which whales believe in steem's future and which don't. Steem though is different than other altcoins in that the more you hold the more rewards you can get so greedy people won't necessarily sell they will try to increase their stash even more with curation rewards and SP distribution rewards. I have 5000 Steem and I am not trying to obtain more cheaply so I can have a whale monopoly for rewarding my Sybil bloggers, which is an entirely futile plan because that will just make a broken system more broken. Without some rational investment from outside now, the ecosystem dies. I was pretty sceptical about steem for many different reasons, but with a new economic model and an all in one social site with a great interface ( busy.org) I think they can make it big. They just need to fix some curation issue but I think it's worth investing a bit on steem now. |
|
|
|
The whole point of the long power down period was to prevent the hyper inflated steem from being dumped on the market.
Now they will reduce the inflation down a lot and gradually decrease inflation over the years which will make the token scarce so there is really no point to lock people for 2 years. You guys seem worried now that the price is going to crash but when it went from $4 to $0.1 didn't seem worried at all lol
But the prior inflation is going to released all at once on all of us. You can't simply erase what was already inflated all at once. Too many people holding tokens which they got for nearly free. No investment case. Dumping, dumping, dumping clusterfuckfest coming. Auroracoin is good example of what will happen. If they want to get rid of their share at this price, i say their loss. At least we will see which whales believe in steem's future and which don't. Steem though is different than other altcoins in that the more you hold the more rewards you can get so greedy people won't necessarily sell they will try to increase their stash even more with curation rewards and SP distribution rewards. |
|
|
|
...except I would not have dropped the 104 weeks to 13 weeks because it could create enormous selling pressure collapsing the price...
Note the likely reason for needing to drop the 104 weeks to 13 for power down, is because otherwise the existing SP holders have no way to lower the debasement rate of SP holders quickly by powering down. This is a dilemma. tl;dr is stand on the sidelines and wait to scoop up very cheap STEEM after the dust settles. As I have told @smooth in private and I will try to tell @ned and @dan today by linking to this post, they should make the changes to lower the inflation rate to 9.5% for speculators (and all), but they should not lower the power down cycle from 104 weeks to 13 weeks because it is going to crater the price. The least they can do after the sneaky stealth "premine" is to not allow themselves (whales) to extract more than 1% a week from it. But opening the floodgates to 8% per week, they are raping their own system and burning it to the ground. Someone please talk some sense into them! The whole point of the long power down period was to prevent the hyper inflated steem from being dumped on the market. Now they will reduce the inflation down a lot and gradually decrease inflation over the years which will make the token scarce so there is really no point to lock people for 2 years. You guys seem worried now that the price is going to crash but when it went from $4 to $0.1 didn't seem worried at all lol the price already crashed, not much room left |
|
|
|
|
@iamnotback or @smooth
Why do curation rewards percentage decreases when people upvote a post before the 30 min mark? Most curation rewards on the platform are below 5% of the total payouts per post...no wonder why there is only bots curating...
|
|
|
|
Part of the new issued coins are allocated to SP holders. This means that the less Steem is powered up the more coins are being allocated to existing SP holders. So the new changes ( more liquid steem) basically creates a new incentive to stay powered up because there would be less steem powered up. Please let me know if I am missing something but that's how I understand it.
Yes this is correct. When the percentage of SP is less than 90%, then there is an apprecation of share aggregating to the SP holders. This increases as the SP share decreases. I had covered this math in one of my blogs or comment posts on Steem. It is linked upthread some where in this thread. The chart is here and the detailed math discussion is in the comments: https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-2Ok thanks for the answer. So if I am the only one powered up I will receive all the steem that was meant to be distributed to all SP holders correct? Just want to make sure The math is a bit more complex. Suffice to say that the lower the ratio of SP to non-SP, then the more (than their "proportional" relative to total inflation) share of the inflation that the SP holders get. And all SP holders get a proportional share relative to other SP holders. In other words, as that ratio declines from ~90%, the inflation is putting more of the market cap in your pocket if you are a SP holder. The lower the ratio, the faster your share of the market cap grows. Above ~90% ratio, as an SP holder you are being debased and losing share of the market cap. Edit: this means if the whales don't power down, their share of the money supply will be growing until this new change to lower the power down to 3 months duration! So it means the whale concentration problem can get worse. It is going to be very interesting to see how they try to extract the project from the initial effects of the sneaky stealthmine ("premine"). Yeah Im curious to see especially what the steemit account will do. |
|
|
|
Part of the new issued coins are allocated to SP holders. This means that the less Steem is powered up the more coins are being allocated to existing SP holders. So the new changes ( more liquid steem) basically creates a new incentive to stay powered up because there would be less steem powered up. Please let me know if I am missing something but that's how I understand it.
Yes this is correct. When the percentage of SP is less than 90%, then there is an apprecation of share aggregating to the SP holders. This increases as the SP share decreases. I had covered this math in one of my blogs or comment posts on Steem. It is linked upthread some where in this thread. The chart is here and the detailed math discussion is in the comments: https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-2Ok thanks for the answer. So if I am the only one powered up I will receive all the steem that was meant to be distributed to all SP holders correct? Just want to make sure |
|
|
|
|
Part of the new issued coins are allocated to SP holders. This means that the less Steem is powered up the more coins are being allocated to existing SP holders. So the new changes ( more liquid steem) basically creates a new incentive to stay powered up because there would be less steem powered up. Please let me know if I am missing something but that's how I understand it.
|
|
|
|
|
>And it also showed us that locking up payouts builds loyalty. But locking up investors was really, really, really, really stupid.
I agree.
>I think there is no market because there is no stickiness. And the reason is because the concept of earning money from blogging (or curating) is flawed as a mass adoption onboarding.
I don't think the concept is flawed, it's just that it shoudln't be advertised as a blogging site to make money. This is probably the biggest mistake they've made which they can still rectify.
Steemit should be a social media site just like facebook with options to make money. Basically like games on facebook . Steemit should be like a social media site with many funny ways to make real money ( blogging being one of them) but you could have surveys,games,helping people with questions,predictions markets,etc...
To me the main reason people leave the site is
-the price decline, users have less rewards than they were used too
-the non social friendly site, no friend suggestion,no way to PM people, UI is too basic with no social media option
- lack of ways to earn rewards/ there are some people who tried blogging but never received any rewards, those people should be able to find alternative ways to earn.
-
|
|
|
|
It is not a fair bet to traders because as you say it is a "forced" position, traders have to lock their steem and this is the worst thing for a speculators. There is no way to speculate on steem without getting hit by the inflation which is why traders are not buying it.
This is especially true because, even though as SP investor you have voting rights, the SP is so concentrated with insiders that the voting rights to a new investor, even a fairly large one, are all but meaningless. I don't see this as a problem at all. The main reason people buy steem power is for the curation reward. The more SP they have the more curation reward they get, so the system is working there. I understand what you mean though, people like to feel that their vote is worth more but this will be solved naturally if the price of steem increases. This is also why steem power should not be seen as an investment but just a way to increase your steem balance. EDIT : Actually the main reason people buy steem power now is because they are told its the only way to invest in steemit without getting hit by the hyperinflation. And the main reason why people should buy steem power is the curation rewards. |
|
|
|
They could have made it deflationary, in the sense that there is a fixed pool of shares and all users pay over a year 10% of their holdings in order to pay witnesses, content, etc. But then you'd have accounting issues with exchanges and people saying they lost coins. But it would be the same thing more-or-less, except for people's perception that "we are going doooooooownnnnnnn".
People wouldn't have the perception that we are going down because the 10% inflation comes from newly created coins. Nothing will be deducted from their balance. There won't be any accounting issues either. The steem balance would simply remain the same and the newly printed coin will go to miners and author rewards. Basically you can achieve exactly the same thing but without the big inflation which is killing the price.
The current design isn't without problems either: I don't think the reverse split option in a couple of years will be without a hitch. Doesn't this create problems for investors, exchanges etc? You'd have to completely rename the token for all people to be (forced to get) in sync and don't do something stupid like thinking "oh price is unbelievable right now (after the reverse split), let's sell". But that's ahead of our time.
The reverse split won't be needed for decades if ever if you only inflate steem by 10% or whatever the reward is. They could make the system much more attractive to investors by simply stopping printing so many coins. If there was a real purpose for doing so I would understand but it seems they are shooting themselves in the foot with the insane inflation. If the reason to issue so many new coins is to incentivize people to power up then there are much better of doing it, by reducing the lock period and by increasing curation rewards. One thing I remember Ned said is that he wants people to be invested long term which is partly why they design the lock smart contract. I want to say to Ned that the best way to make sure people are invested long term is if the design is sound and sustainable with the right incentives. Many others and I are wondering how the steem price will increase with such inflation. AlexGR you seem to think that as long as you get compensated for the price decline it's all good but you fail to recognize the importance of the price of steem. The price of steem is directly linked to the capacity of steemit to pay new bloggers, if the price keeps decreasing due to the inflation ( as we ve seen in the last month or two) then investors gets a signal that this platform has less and less money to pay for bloggers, so you will be sure they won't buy the currency. |
|
|
|
Also as Dan said it is only a psychologic incentive because in reality you don't get any benefit from locking up your steem power. (not suffering from inflation is not a benefit) I agree with this. But, still, you don't suffer from the inflation. So you have a position that is basically a fair bet on the platform like any other crypto token that isn't hyper-inflationary. A forced long-term position, but still a viable position potentially. I'll definitely bring your idees to the attention of the devs if I ever have the opportunity to discuss this sort of thing with them. Understandably there isn't generally a large appetite for major changes, but the more their ideas are apparently rejected by the markets the more there could be some receptivity. Maybe (in fact there is often a tendency to dismiss short term price movements as not indicative of much of anything, and there is a lot of validity to that). It is not a fair bet to traders because as you say it is a "forced" position, traders have to lock their steem and this is the worst thing for a speculators. There is no way to speculate on steem without getting hit by the inflation which is why traders are not buying it. What matters to people is the value of their account, which is why I think the growing steem balance is not having the intended effect anyway, at least not for smart traders/investors. >there isn't generally a large appetite for major changes When the price hits 0.001$ they will probably reconsider, they will have nothing to lose at that point. A very low price is where we are heading and it's not going to go back up because many people have already powered down in anticipation to the next rise. That's what happens when you inflate a currency so much no one wants to hold it. >I'll definitely bring your idees to the attention of the devs if I ever have the opportunity to discuss this sort of thing with them Thank you |
|
|
|
The main reason is probably to incentivize locking up coins in SP, which is is needed for a variety of security reasons including reputation but even double voting (if you can instantly move your coins from one account to another you can vote again with the second account). If you do lock up your coins you don't suffer from the crazy inflation, so as I commented to iamnotback above, you can't really count both as disadvantages. Pick one or the other. A much shorter luckup period would probably still solve most of the problems. I didn't design the thing  The way I see it is that Steem Power is a tool to play the steemit game, to participate in the steemit economy, the more you have the more you can get. So there you have your incentive. I would gladly lock my steem if I know I will be getting more and most importantly if the price of steem is solid. People don't care about locking their coins if they are confident 2 years from now the price will be good. Also as Dan said it is only a psychologic incentive because in reality you don't get any benefit from locking up your steem power. (not suffering from inflation is not a benefit) To me it would be much better to allow investors/traders/speculators to be able to buy and hoard steem at 10% per year ( the fundamentals will probably make up for this inflation ) and everyone who want to earn more steem can convert to steem power. The price of steem is an indicator to how many people the platform can handle, if the devs don't allow steem price to grow by having unecessary inflation then steem can't grow. Investors/speculators are seeing the short comings which is also why they don't invest. I agree with you that the lock up period should be a lot shorter and I also think that the inflation should be the minimum possible which is around 10%. They could also increase curation reward to increase incentive to convert to steem power . If you could bring this up to the dev I'd appreciate it. Im convinced that it would solve many issue that steem currently faces and will face in the future |
|
|
|
EXACTLY this. Speculation is the only reason why many blockchains have any value at all. For the sake of crypto, I hope Steem can fix it's current model and develop into a successful project.
My thought exactly. Steem is not attractive at all for traders because of the insane printing. Steem market is not healthy as volume shows. |
|
|
|
Someone who have 17000 steem power earn about 100 steem every day, that’s 700 per week
That sam person will be able to cash out 160 steem every week.
This is true ONLY if the hodler of the 17000 SP doesn't power down at all, from the moment you power down your earnings per day become less and less after each week, because you have less SP now, do you really expect someone who has 16840 SP to earn the same "interest" as someone who still has 17000 SP? Also, as I already told you, each subsequent power down, powers down MORE SP than the previous one. I tried it and I know it. I suppose some earned interest is added to your power down amount as the time passes. The power down is included in my calculation. Someone who has 17000 SP will earn 700 per week minus the 160 that he powered down which means is balance will increase by 540 Steem power every week. Someone who earn 16840 steem power will earn slightly less interest but I don’t see how this is relevant because he will also be able to cash out less steem. Take for example someone who has 1700 SP . He will earn 70 steem per week and will be able to cash out 16 steem so his steem power will grow regardless. The number of steem power someone have doesn't change the fact that the steem power balance is growing perpetualy even when cashing out every week. There is a contradiction in your post. You said "from the moment you power down your earnings per day become less and less after each week" "each subsequent power down, powers down MORE SP than the previous one" If your earnings per day decreases how can the amount of Steem power that you cash out increase? Maybe it's time for you to create another newbie account and start another stupid thread from scratch.  Your reaction is very odd. My account on steemit is https://steemit.com/@snowflake. My question must have hit a nerve somewhere, no wonder why..The only valid answer to this question is that earnings are growing faster than the SP you can get out ( which is exactly my point) But you are in denial, you have a condition called cognitive dissonance, you don't want to hear that steemit is flawed because you have already convinced yourself that it's not. |
|
|
|
Someone who have 17000 steem power earn about 100 steem every day, that’s 700 per week
That sam person will be able to cash out 160 steem every week.
This is true ONLY if the hodler of the 17000 SP doesn't power down at all, from the moment you power down your earnings per day become less and less after each week, because you have less SP now, do you really expect someone who has 16840 SP to earn the same "interest" as someone who still has 17000 SP? Also, as I already told you, each subsequent power down, powers down MORE SP than the previous one. I tried it and I know it. I suppose some earned interest is added to your power down amount as the time passes. The power down is included in my calculation. Someone who has 17000 SP will earn 700 per week minus the 160 that he powered down which means is balance will increase by 540 Steem power every week. Someone who earn 16840 steem power will earn slightly less interest but I don’t see how this is relevant because he will also be able to cash out less steem. Take for example someone who has 1700 SP . He will earn 70 steem per week and will be able to cash out 16 steem so his steem power will grow regardless. The number of steem power someone have doesn't change the fact that the steem power balance is growing perpetualy even when cashing out every week. There is a contradiction in your post. You said "from the moment you power down your earnings per day become less and less after each week" "each subsequent power down, powers down MORE SP than the previous one" If your earnings per day decreases how can the amount of Steem power that you cash out increase? |
|
|
|
@snowflake43
In the end of your 104th power down you will end up with ZERO STEEM and earnings, PERIOD.
HOW? I just demonstrated above that even when inflation is back to normal ( 100%) that people's Steem power will still increase when cashing out every week. Please show me your math |
|
|
|
The event every 3 years is not a deflation event it's a reverse stock split, this changes nothing on how the system works or inflation rate,
Correct, you're almost there... In a reverse stock split the total amount of shares is "deflated" or "reduced" but of course, your percentage ownership at the time of the split remains equal and the inflation remains the same. What you fail to consider is the well known fact that the inflation rate three years from now will be much lower than it is now. I never complained about 10% annual inflation. I actually said that inflation is not even the issue. Maybe read my post next time?
Chillax Pointdexter, I was just joking. Nobody in crypto would ever complain a coin whose inflation rate is similar to that of the king's (BTC). I just wanted to see if you were paying attention, and it appears that you are, so I will continue to teach... The important metric is not inflation as those coins are locked anyway, it is the rate of SP going out. This rate is constantly increasing.
OK, yes, SP is where the inflation happens, but what do you mean by "SP going out"? Do you mean the rate that people are powering down and dumping is increasing? Becasue I just picked one random Steemit user, and he recently stopped powering down. https://steemit.com/@steemjesus/transfers@bitcoinjesus2.0, the rate of inflation will be 3 times lower , even at this rate people’s steem power will keep growing regardless if they cash out every week or not. Someone who have 17000 steem power earn about 100 steem every day, that’s 700 per week That sam person will be able to cash out 160 steem every week. That’s with the current settings. Now assume that the rate of inflation is 3 times lower then you have to divide 700 by 3 which is 233. So as you can see even with the planned inflation rate of 100% in the future ( 3 times lower than now) , your steem power will give you 233 every week but you will only be able to cash out 160 so your balance will keep on growing. Regarding your second question, yes I mean the rate of steem power being converted back to steem. The fact that one user powered down is irrelevant, what you need to understand is that everyone’s steem power balance is growing every passing day and so every week everyone can power down more steem than the previous week, this creates a system where the ressources to kill the price of steem keeps increasing.That’s the reason why steem badly needs a mechanism to disincentivize people to cash out by rewarding those who stay in the system and by punishing those who don’t. Punishing is actually the wrong word here because its normal that the balance of people who cash out go down , what is not normal is the current system where people can cash out to infinity. |
|
|
|
|
