Steem vs Synereo, which one will lead the decentralized social media revolution?

[iamnotback]

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-1461787856

That is revenue, not profit.

With a mostly autonomous solution, revenue would not be far off from profit. For instance, I posit the paid advertising proposal I designed will not have any expenses at all (other than ad duration): https://steemit.com/sip/@coinhoarder/steem-proposal-offsetting-steem-power-debasement-through-unobtrusive-advertisements

$10 per user per year is more than anyone is getting on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.

Bloggers are not joining for $10 per year. They are joining for $100s per blog post. Either that remains the reality or they leave. Well that is my current assumption. Let's see if the site is sticky.

Why don't you try to see if Ethereum's community will exclusively move from Reddit to Steemit. I think your failure to get them to do so, will be indicative of the problem of copying Reddit.

Or maybe you can build some community that Reddit doesn't have. Any way, it seems like a small ecosystem like development, not a token level scale. A separate token for each social network is silly. Should Bitcointalk.org have its own token.

Edit: btw in April 2015, I improved on dateinasia.com by making a site that allowed more than one photo and larger photos. Problem was I couldn't scale up the usership because microtransactions for dating sites don't exist because my unique feature was going to be to pay the ladies to participate. Any way, Dateinasia.com has since copied my improvements in terms of the photos but kept their advertising funded model. Reddit will do the same if you seriously challenge them with better features.

[iamnotback]

The financial pyramid here is the need to keep the growth of the market cap faster than the growth of new bloggers, else the payouts per blogger will decline.

Is this any different than bitcoin? Did bitcoin had to grow its marketcap faster than the mining difficulty? why is it different with STEEM?

Mining scales to the market cap. The ASIC manufacturers and ASIC farms can continue to cannibalize the marginal miners.

Yeah I think it is totally different. The usership of Bitcoin is not driven by an expectation (predicated on) that the market cap must grow faster than the adoption. I mean Bitcoin doesn't become totally non-viable if the price collapses from $1200 to $150. Whereas for Steemit if the price collapses then the users (bloggers) might leave. The token is too tightly coupled to the usership model of a single ecosystem use case.

Another potential problem is that once the Indians, Filipinos, and Nigerians figure out how to start gaming (blogging effectively to and other potential game theories) this system, they may be able to drive the marginal revenue per blog post down to something like say perhaps 25 cents. So this might drive away all the Western bloggers and you end up with some crap that nobody wants to participate in.

These Indians will surely figure out how to game the rep power system eventually. They are clever and especially when making a quick buck online. They totally destroyed the revenue from solving CAPTCHAs.

The problem is that downvoting for those Westerners with rep power (such as smooth) will become a pita. The Indians will figure out how to out effort and Sybil attack the Westerners and take control of the rep power.

To convert your most valuable assets into police who have to compete with 1.3 billion people who found it worthy to solve CAPTCHAs, it is a total misalignment of economic incentives.

[smooth]

Bloggers are not joining for $10 per year. They are joining for $100s per blog post. Either that remains the reality or they leave. Well that is my current assumption. Let's see if the site is sticky.

They certainly won't join at the same rate for smaller rewards but they won't necessarily leave either, if it is a good platform for the posting and commenting they do anyway (fluffypony commented, for example, that he really likes the markdown formatter). You are right that we will have to see how sticky it is turns out to be. The answer is not clear.

The problem is that downvoting for those Westerners with rep power (such as smooth) will become a pita.

I agree this aspect of the incentive structure is broken.

[iamnotback]

(fluffypony commented, for example, that he really likes the markdown formatter)

Not having a place to publish very good markdown with choices of markdown is something I have always lamented. But why would I invest my valuable postings to a site that I think might go defunct because it is a pyramid scheme.

I'll stick with Github.

As for discussion sites, I trust bitcointalk.org to keep years of archives around. I lament that bitcointalk.org doesn't have better markdown.

Yeah maybe they could find a niche, but again I argue this is for an ecosystem project, not for a token project. To get network effects, you need to not compete with others who want to use your token. The token needs to be independent of the ecosystem competitors built using the token.

Also my prior post mentions some of my other concerns about it being gamed into oblivion.

Edit: btw in April 2015, I improved on dateinasia.com by making a site that allowed more than one photo and larger photos. Problem was I couldn't scale up the usership because microtransactions for dating sites don't exist because my unique feature was going to be to pay the ladies to participate. Any way, Dateinasia.com has since copied my improvements in terms of the photos but kept their advertising funded model. Reddit will do the same if you seriously challenge them with better features.

[CoinHoarder]

The financial pyramid here is the need to keep the growth of the market cap faster than the growth of new bloggers, else the payouts per blogger will decline.

Is this any different than bitcoin? Did bitcoin had to grow its marketcap faster than the mining difficulty? why is it different with STEEM?

Mining scales to the market cap. The ASIC manufacturers and ASIC farms can continue to cannibalize the marginal miners.

Yeah I think it is totally different. The usership of Bitcoin is not driven by an expectation that the market cap has grow faster than the adoption. I mean Bitcoin doesn't become totally non-viable if the price collapses from $1200 to $150. Whereas for Steemit if the price collapses then the users (bloggers) might leave.

This argument is bunk. Mining scales with the market cap just as contribution rewards scales with the market cap. There is no difference.

The usership is not driven by the expectation that the market cap will grow faster than the usership. All it has to do is grow at a similar or slightly slower pace. The payouts are insanely high right now, therefore it is a silly statement to say market cap has to grow at a higher pace than usership, or that there is an expectation that it will do so.

Same with Bitcoin... The usership speculation is driven by the expectation usership and market cap will grow. Not necessarily that one will grow faster than the other.

[iamnotback]

The financial pyramid here is the need to keep the growth of the market cap faster than the growth of new bloggers, else the payouts per blogger will decline.

Is this any different than bitcoin? Did bitcoin had to grow its marketcap faster than the mining difficulty? why is it different with STEEM?

Mining scales to the market cap. The ASIC manufacturers and ASIC farms can continue to cannibalize the marginal miners.

Yeah I think it is totally different. The usership of Bitcoin is not driven by an expectation (predicated on) that the market cap must grow faster than the adoption. I mean Bitcoin doesn't become totally non-viable if the price collapses from $1200 to $150. Whereas for Steemit if the price collapses then the users (bloggers) might leave. The token is too tightly coupled to the usership model of a single ecosystem use case.

This argument is bunk. Mining scales with the market cap just as contribution rewards scales with the market cap. There is no difference.

You didn't pay attention to what I wrote. New ASIC mining farms can grow faster because they can cannabilize marginal miners (which is inexorable because newer ASICs are more efficient than older ones due to Moore's Law), so this investment sector is not dependent on what the price does.

My even stronger point though is that mining doesn't collapse to a disaster if the price drops by 1/10. Whereas for Steemit, it is possible that such a price drop could drive away all the Westerner bloggers and you might be left with Indians and Nigerians and them gaming the system into a cesspool. I know already that a globally computed reputation metric involved with payouts is the incorrect design for a social network. I thought about this carefully when I designed JAMBOX and I realized that any social network which tried to globally record the reputation that is involved with the payouts would be gamed to oblivion. My popcorn is ready for the Sybil attacks...

You are equating things which are not at all the same. So sorry your rebuttal is bunk.

Where is our escrowed BTC bet Mr. Know It All? I am very eager to take your BTC. Come on don't get cold feet.

The user ship is not driven by the expectation that the market cap will grow faster than the user ship. All it has to do is grow at a similar or slightly slower pace. The payouts are insanely high right now, therefore it is a silly statement to say market cap has to grow at a higher pace than user ship, or that there is an expectation that it will do so.

Yes it is because the users have to also figure out that the high payout rates which initially excite them are not average. I studied the payouts for the Top 2000 users about a month ago. It was very concentrated at the top. Social networks should be about all users getting what they want, not just a few at the top. This design is so broken that I didn't really want to write down all my thoughts because it is just so fucking bad. But there you go again, inciting me with your habitual disrespect.

I wish I had access to all their data, so I could see repeat visits, and other sticky metrics. I bet I could show right now it is failing.

Marketing neophyte get off my lawn. Complete your college degree and get some real world experience making million user software projects as I did. Then you may justifiably disrespect me as you habitually do.

Same with Bitcoin... The usership speculation is driven by the expectation usership and market cap will grow.

Bitcoin's market cap is not primarily driven by some need to not fall below a certain price otherwise cratering the usership. Geez. Stop wasting my time with asinine posts.

[iamnotback]

This dude just made. $500 just for posting the same shit you are posting here for free.

https://steemit.com/steememe/@benjojo/poking-fun-at-another-social-media-behemoth

Humans like dollars, who would have guessed?

How big is this MySpace/Facebook/Reddit market anyway?

That perfectly indicative of why Steemit is doomed. A myopic set of devs and speculators who don't have a fucking clue about what it is important. Yeah you guys will go upvote some bravado which is worthless and actually entirely antithetical to what you need to achieve. Your own little boat of crypto zealots is precisely what you are going to always end up with.

Did you guys ever graduate from your pimple-faced fantasies about the way the world should work from when you were living in your parents' basement.

You've just chased away any women who might read that post.

[iamnotback]

you're silly, we like money

And that isn't what SOCIAL networks are about.

Maybe you can make a little crypto zealots community. I won't be joining. I'll stay here at BCT.

[chryspano]

A myopic set of devs and speculators who don't have a fucking clue about what it is important

What is important? the status quo?

You've just chased away any women who might read that post.

and it seems that they are definetly a lot! https://steemit.com/steemit/@liondani/it-s-official-females-dominates-males-on-steemit

[iamnotback]

A myopic set of devs and speculators who don't have a fucking clue about what it is important

What is important? the status quo?

A viable technical, economic, and marketing design.

You've just chased away any women who might read that post.

and it seems that they are definetly a lot! https://steemit.com/steemit/@liondani/it-s-official-females-dominates-males-on-steemit

India already at 6.4% of site traffic. As I predicted, and I expect they will be coming to game it into oblivion...though note 5.9% Indians on Reddit, yet the huge difference in traffic from Westerners (USA) on Reddit. Steemit has Indians, Russians, etc.. Looks to me that it is incentivized by payouts, which are probably even more motivational to those in countries where income is lower.

Women can definitely be bought. That is why it is impossible to ban prostitution. But we have to see if these women find something other than the money driving their use of the site. Again I don't expect the very lucrative payouts to be sustainable.

As for what normally motivates women on SOCIAL networks, that bravado about we only need our small boat is going to drive them away. As you might know, prostituted women act differently than normal women. Women  typically want an inclusive SOCIAL experience without aggressiveness. They want harmony, not bravado and strife.

Minor point (maybe not relevant): also note the 42% bounce rate versus 27% for Reddit. This could improve if the site becomes more sticky with discussions that users want to return to. Thus far I haven't see multi-days/weeks ongoing discussions like I do on Reddit, but I haven't studied too many Steemit blog posts.

[CoinHoarder]

so this investment sector is not dependent on what the price does.

Profitability of mining (bitcoin) is indeed greatly influenced by market cap, just as profitability of contributing (steemit) is influenced by market cap. Have you ever even mined any cryptocurrency in your life? That is pretty basic...

My even stronger point though is that mining doesn't collapse to a disaster if the price drops by 1/10.

This is not a stronger point. If price falls 90% then so does the profitability of mining (bitcoin). Similarly, if price falls 90% then so does contributing (steemit). They are very similar, yet you deny them being so.

Yes it is because the users have to also figure out that the high payout rates which initially excite them are not average.

Who are you to decide what people will be happy with? You are not omniscient. Legacy social networks pay them nothing. As long as they are getting paid something they may stay. If some leave, then contribution profits go up for everyone that does stay. Eventually equilibrium is reached. Think of it as being the same as mining difficulty going down on Bitcoin. See my point? The economics of mining with hardware (bitcoin) and mining with contributing (steemit) work in similar ways.

As to your other point, Eastern Europeans making crap posts will not get up voted by westerners that have easily a majority of Steen Power. I don't know how you expect them to take over unless they can somehow post better content, then they would deserve to.

Same with Bitcoin... The usership speculation is driven by the expectation usership and market cap will grow.

Bitcoin's market cap is not primarily driven by some need to not fall below a certain price otherwise cratering the usership.

I hate to break it to you, but there is certainly a "point of no return" that Bitcoin could fall to which would crater usership/interest/speculation.

And no, people are not using speculating on Bitcoin with the expectation the market cap or usership will decline.

You are comparing apples, but claiming you are comparing apples and oranges.

[iamnotback]

so this investment sector is not dependent on what the price does.

Profitability of mining (bitcoin) is indeed greatly influenced by market cap, just as profitability of contributing (steemit) is influenced by market cap. Have you ever even mined any cryptocurrency in your life? That is pretty basic...

Incorrect. ASIC mining farms expand without worry about the price, because their costs are slow low. This only impacts how fast they can expand, but doesn't cause their prior investments to go bankrupt. It isn't thresholded the way payout incentives to blog are.

My even stronger point though is that mining doesn't collapse to a disaster if the price drops by 1/10.

This is not a stronger point. If price falls 90% then so does the profitability of mining (bitcoin). Similarly, if price falls 90% then so does contributing (steemit). They are very similar, yet you deny them being so.

Incorrect. Below a certain threshold price, people are insulted to blog for that price and it drops to 0. Mining is never reduced to 0.

For example, no person on earth will write a blog post for 1 cents. And nor person on earth will write interesting content for 10 cents, probably not even 25 cents. And no Westerner will blog with high quality for probably less than a few $ per blog post on average.

Yes it is because the users have to also figure out that the high payout rates which initially excite them are not average.

Who are you to decide what people will be happy with? You are not omniscient.

If we assume that the reason people are using Steemit is because of the payouts (since that is basically the only unique feature of significance it has), then we can safely assume that if payouts are too low then users have no reason to use Steemit. They already have Reddit which has greater usership thus more interesting and thorough discussions. Moving to site with much less reach has to provide some benefit that Reddit does not.

Legacy social networks pay them nothing. As long as they are getting paid something they may stay.

There is actually research on why paying too low is worse than not paying. It is an insult. Besides you've focused your users on that expectation of being paid something worthwhile. You've created that demographic by the very fact of promoting $500+ payouts for blog posts.

If some leave, then contribution profits go up for everyone that does stay. Eventually equilibrium is reached.

There are probably Indians and Nigerians willing to lower that equilibrium much lower than anyone else is willing to work for. Which already happened with CAPTCHAs. They will just bleed all the value out of it, because they don't have any incentive to respect any Nash equilibrium due to the incorrect design of Steemit.

My popcorn is ready. Let's just watch. No need to argue, we will eventually see the outcome.

Think of it as being the same as mining difficulty going down on Bitcoin. See my point? The economics of mining with hardware (bitcoin) and mining with contributing (steemit) work in similar ways.

I have now explained to you why your analogy is bunk.

Same with Bitcoin... The usership speculation is driven by the expectation usership and market cap will grow.

Bitcoin's market cap is not primarily driven by some need to not fall below a certain price otherwise cratering the usership.

I hate to break it to you, but there is certainly a "point of no return" that Bitcoin could fall to which would crater usership/interest/speculation.

Probably so, but it isn't 1/10 of the current price. I doubt even 1/100 would implode it. And I am sure that price drop would implode Steemit.

And no, people are not using speculating on Bitcoin with the expectation the market cap or usership will decline.

We weren't discussing speculation. You just moved the goal posts. We were discussing whether mining was thresholded to drop to 0 at certain drop in the price of the token.

I am so tired of having a debate with a person who is not intellectual enough.

Can we please stop now?

[CoinHoarder]

You are still off base. I am also getting tired of debating someone who thinks he is omniscient yet off on so many factors, but I guess I am getting used to it by now because this is how all of our debates go. Whoever sits at the keyboard longest wins (you).

I will be back later.. I have a date tonight.  

[iamnotback]

I have a date tonight.  

Get laid, so maybe you back off your aggressive 20-year old pimple-faced nonsense. You go on and on claiming I am off base, when I have rebutted every thing you written over numerous posts. You haven't gotten even one point correct.

[CoinHoarder]

rebutted every thing you written over numerous posts. You haven't gotten even one point correct.

You think you have, but you haven't. It's called being wrong. Don't get down on yourself... it happens to everyone every now and then!

[iamnotback]

rebutted every thing you written over numerous posts. You haven't gotten even one point correct.

You think you have, but you haven't.

20 year old. Can never admit when he hasn't presented a cogent argument.

[iamnotback]

Nonsense:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@dantheman/can-bitcoin-scale-to-keep-up-with-demand-created-by-steem

Exchanges don't put every trade on the Bitcoin block chain.

[iamnotback]

As to your other point, Eastern Europeans making crap posts will not get up voted by westerners that have easily a majority of Steen Power. I don't know how you expect them to take over unless they can somehow post better content, then they would deserve to.

You added this after I had replied to your post.

SP has to be used via voting in order to maintain its standing relative to other SP which is always voting at its quota (assuming the blocks of SP are voting for themselves collectively to increase their earnings and SP). This was my point to smooth which he agreed with, that if Indians have more free time on their hands, and the Westerners with huge SP find it a pita to vote with all their SP.

I'll be looking now more specifically how to game the system, since you've challenged me. I didn't expect to get this involved, but since you are such a nice guy, you incited me to.

[iamnotback]

Yes it is because the users have to also figure out that the high payout rates which initially excite them are not average. I studied the payouts for the Top 2000 users about a month ago. It was very concentrated at the top. Social networks should be about all users getting what they want, not just a few at the top.

Who are you to decide what people will be happy with? You are not omniscient.

If we assume that the reason people are using Steemit is because of the payouts (since that is basically the only unique feature of significance it has), then we can safely assume that if payouts are too low then users have no reason to use Steemit. They already have Reddit which has greater usership thus more interesting and thorough discussions. Moving to site with much less reach has to provide some benefit that Reddit does not.

Dan specifically designed it to create this pyramid gambling pyschology effect:

V-shares are equal to R-shares squared. So if Bob's post has twice as many R-shares as Alice's post, Bob gets 4x Alice's V-shares reward; if Bob's post has ten times as many R-shares as Alice's post, Bob's post gets one hundred times Alice's V-shares reward.

This O(R^2) behavior biases the system toward "winner-take-all", concentrating the payouts in the form of fewer, larger rewards for the big winners. This is a deliberate design decision to aid in attracting and retaining users: Humans are notoriously bad at thinking about probabilities, and users will instead judge the system based on the sizes of the largest rewards. The O(R^2) part of the system is designed to attract risk-seeking users [1] [2].

This purposefully fooling the users and will create a burnout effect once they realize their experience has been contrary to their emotional/motivational reason for joining.

Expect euphoria to change to depression and resentment. Expect users to look for ways to cheat and get what they expected.

Dan is using a variant of gamification in a very deleterious and unsustainable way.

[chryspano]

I might be wrong in this but I think that there were some changes in the voting system, https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/changes-to-curation-reward-allocation I don't even know if this is the most updated version