Steemit how can this thing be workable long term?

[iamnotback]

There is no funding model in Steemit that can work. Dan can build all the market places he want, but no one will buy STEEM to go use his market places, because those same merchants (or similar products) will also sell for fiat and BTC else where. Steemians will power down STEEM POWER to STEEM and use his market places sometimes, but the other times they will cash out. There won't be a net incoming demand for STEEM other than from speculators. But speculators don't keep coming in forever. The price can't go to infinity. Thus the cost of funding the bloggers will come from those who trade more often, or everyone powers up so it is paid by all investors. So why invest if there is no great transactional utility for the STEEM token and the cost of paying bloggers comes out of the investors pocket?

It is very difficult to create exclusive demand for a CC token. Bitcoin locked up large wire transfers and avoiding the banks' paperwork requirements. No one will have a reason to go buy STEEM to go make a transaction. No one has an incentive to buy STEEM to gain more voting power, because the whales drive the voting and you'd be crazy to invest $millions and lock it up for 2 years.

Rebuttal please?

I can't see any way that STEEM can ever sustain. I see a way to (possibly) do it, but it requires that no tokens are given away for free on signup. And I am not going to reveal my suggestion because Steem can't implement it because they already premined 57 million tokens to give away for free. And because if I do decide to create a better fork of streemit, I don't want to give my ideas away to other development groups who also contemplating doing so.

To give a token investment value, you have to create some transaction demand for the token originating from those who had to buy the token (not just from tokens given away to bloggers coming out of investors' pockets).

[1714825338]

1714825338

[1714825338]

1714825338

[generalizethis]

There is no funding model in Steemit that can work. Dan can build all the market places he want, but no one will buy STEEM to go use his market places, because those same merchants (or similar products) will also sell for fiat and BTC else where. Steemians will power down STEEM POWER to STEEM and use his market places sometimes, but the other times they will cash out. There won't be a net incoming demand for STEEM other than from speculators. But speculators don't keep coming in forever. The price can't go to infinity. Thus the cost of funding the bloggers will come from those who trade more often, or everyone powers up so it is paid by all investors. So why invest if there is no great transactional utility for the STEEM token and the cost of paying bloggers comes out of the investors pocket?

It is very difficult to create exclusive demand for a CC token. Bitcoin locked up large wire transfers and avoiding the banks' paperwork requirements. No one will have a reason to go buy STEEM to go make a transaction. No one has an incentive to buy STEEM to gain more voting power, because the whales drive the voting and you'd be crazy to invest $millions and lock it up for 2 years.

Rebuttal please?

I can't see any way that STEEM can ever sustain. I see a way to (possibly) do it, but it requires that no tokens are given away for free on signup. And I am not going to reveal my suggestion because Steem can't implement it because they already premined 57 million tokens to give away for free. And because if I do decide to create a better fork of streemit, I don't want to give my ideas away to other development groups who also contemplating doing so.

I would counter that content providers create demand. If I'm a musician, why would I stay on soundcloud and force my followers to listen to endless stop smoking adds if there was a place I could get a reward for my content and the ads are user specified? Nil? Content provider specified? Personally, I'd want to have more control.

How will advertising be handled? A fee based on the option of choosing advertising (or not) would be an interesting proposition--though I'm just throwing out the first thing that comes to mind.

[iamnotback]

I edited my post. Please re-read.

I would counter that content providers create demand. If I'm a musician, why would I stay on soundcloud and force my followers to listen to endless stop smoking adds if there was a place I could get a reward for my content and the adds are (here's a major question brewing)?

How does that create demand for people to buy STEEM? They will join for free and earn rewards for blogging. No need to buy any STEEM.

How will advertising be handled? A fee based on the option of choosing advertising (or not) would be an interesting proposition--though I'm just throwing out the first thing that comes to mind.

So you are saying the advertisers will pay the blogging rewards. But I already told you many, many times that the revenue from ads is only about $20 per user per year. Not worth user's effort (unless you only pay some users and not others). Why do I need to keep repeating this?

[generalizethis]

I edited my post. Please re-read.

I would counter that content providers create demand. If I'm a musician, why would I stay on soundcloud and force my followers to listen to endless stop smoking adds if there was a place I could get a reward for my content and the adds are (here's a major question brewing)?

How does that create demand for people to buy STEEM? They will join for free and earn rewards for blogging. No need to buy any STEEM.

How will advertising be handled? A fee based on the option of choosing advertising (or not) would be an interesting proposition--though I'm just throwing out the first thing that comes to mind.

So you are saying the advertisers will pay the blogging rewards. But I already told you many, many times that the revenue from ads is only about $20 per user per year. Not worth user's effort (unless you only pay some users and not others). Why do I need to keep repeating this?

I'm not saying that advertisers will pay for the entire reward. I'm saying that is part of the solution, but the major part will be followers rewarding a successful brand--whether that brand is a musician, a camgirl, or anonymint--content providers spend years building an audience and that audience will pay to reward them for the effort. It's followers who will buy steem, the same way they buy songs on amazon or tokens on chatterbate or gold on reddit (which is the dumbest thing ever since it doesn't go to the one who made the content).

[iamnotback]

I edited my post. Please re-read.

I would counter that content providers create demand. If I'm a musician, why would I stay on soundcloud and force my followers to listen to endless stop smoking adds if there was a place I could get a reward for my content and the adds are (here's a major question brewing)?

How does that create demand for people to buy STEEM? They will join for free and earn rewards for blogging. No need to buy any STEEM.

How will advertising be handled? A fee based on the option of choosing advertising (or not) would be an interesting proposition--though I'm just throwing out the first thing that comes to mind.

So you are saying the advertisers will pay the blogging rewards. But I already told you many, many times that the revenue from ads is only about $20 per user per year. Not worth user's effort (unless you only pay some users and not others). Why do I need to keep repeating this?

I'm not saying that advertisers will pay for the entire reward. I'm saying that is part of the solution, but the major part will be followers rewarding a successful brand--whether that brand is a musician, a camgirl, or anonymint--content providers spend years building an audience and that audience will pay to reward them for the effort. It's followers who will buy steem, the same way they buy songs on amazon or tokens on chatterbate or gold on reddit (which is the dumbest thing ever since it doesn't go to the one who made the comment).

So you are saying that Steem will migrate away from paying rewards to offering user tipping  

http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/12/17/changetip-must-die/

Did you not read the Streem white paper where it says tipping doesn't work.

Why would users tip in STEEM and not in BTC? Surely Dan and Ned can't stop people from writing new clients (which talk to the blockchain) which offer what users demand.

[AlexGR]

Steem price can never "collapse" entirely - because the power to "direct" what content dominates a successful media/social platform will always be something of tremendous value to those who want to create and promote trends, commercialize the trends that they create, etc etc.

There is definitely going to be demand, but not on the "user" level. More on the corporate or ultra-whale level.

[generalizethis]

I edited my post. Please re-read.

I would counter that content providers create demand. If I'm a musician, why would I stay on soundcloud and force my followers to listen to endless stop smoking adds if there was a place I could get a reward for my content and the adds are (here's a major question brewing)?

How does that create demand for people to buy STEEM? They will join for free and earn rewards for blogging. No need to buy any STEEM.

How will advertising be handled? A fee based on the option of choosing advertising (or not) would be an interesting proposition--though I'm just throwing out the first thing that comes to mind.

So you are saying the advertisers will pay the blogging rewards. But I already told you many, many times that the revenue from ads is only about $20 per user per year. Not worth user's effort (unless you only pay some users and not others). Why do I need to keep repeating this?

I'm not saying that advertisers will pay for the entire reward. I'm saying that is part of the solution, but the major part will be followers rewarding a successful brand--whether that brand is a musician, a camgirl, or anonymint--content providers spend years building an audience and that audience will pay to reward them for the effort. It's followers who will buy steem, the same way they buy songs on amazon or tokens on chatterbate or gold on reddit (which is the dumbest thing ever since it doesn't go to the one who made the comment).

So you are saying that Steem will migrate away from paying rewards to offering user tipping  

http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/12/17/changetip-must-die/

As long as the user can choose the amount to upvote, then they will be able to tip at their discretion. I'm assuming it will move to a more user defined experience (as it should). My guess is the current method is to distribute the rewards in a controlled manner--think slow burn for orbit.

[iamnotback]

I edited my post. Please re-read.

I would counter that content providers create demand. If I'm a musician, why would I stay on soundcloud and force my followers to listen to endless stop smoking adds if there was a place I could get a reward for my content and the adds are (here's a major question brewing)?

How does that create demand for people to buy STEEM? They will join for free and earn rewards for blogging. No need to buy any STEEM.

How will advertising be handled? A fee based on the option of choosing advertising (or not) would be an interesting proposition--though I'm just throwing out the first thing that comes to mind.

So you are saying the advertisers will pay the blogging rewards. But I already told you many, many times that the revenue from ads is only about $20 per user per year. Not worth user's effort (unless you only pay some users and not others). Why do I need to keep repeating this?

I'm not saying that advertisers will pay for the entire reward. I'm saying that is part of the solution, but the major part will be followers rewarding a successful brand--whether that brand is a musician, a camgirl, or anonymint--content providers spend years building an audience and that audience will pay to reward them for the effort. It's followers who will buy steem, the same way they buy songs on amazon or tokens on chatterbate or gold on reddit (which is the dumbest thing ever since it doesn't go to the one who made the comment).

So you are saying that Steem will migrate away from paying rewards to offering user tipping  

http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/12/17/changetip-must-die/

As long as the user can choose the amount to upvote, then they will be able to tip at their discretion. I'm assuming it will move to a more user defined experience (as it should). My guess is the current method is to distribute the rewards in a controlled manner--think slow burn for orbit.

Tipping does not work. Please go read why. They won't change to tipping because they already stated in the white paper that they know it doesn't work. Read the link I provided above and the cited references.

Edit: but even that is irrelevant because bloggers won't force their customers to tip or pay only in STEEM...

You might be able to argue that they will allow users to buy things from bloggers, but users will prefer to use credit card and maybe BTC which they already have. They see no need to convert to STEEM first. Programmers will provide what the users demand. Bloggers don't want to burden their paying users with converting to STEEM first. Golden rule is never make it difficult for people to pay you. Always provide multiple payment options. Bloggers can accept STEEM from those who already have it (i.e. those bloggers who earned STEEM from blogging), but from users who have credit card but no CC or BTC but no STEEM, the blogger would prefer to make it easy for the user to pay otherwise user may not pay. We humans hate hassle points.

[iamnotback]

Steem price can never "collapse" entirely - because the power to "direct" what content dominates a successful media/social platform will always be something of tremendous value to those who want to create and promote trends, commercialize the trends that they create, etc etc.

There is definitely going to be demand, but not on the "user" level. More on the corporate or ultra-whale level.

Non-sequitor. Whales dominating which content gets ranked is killing the site. So your "successful" assumption is in-congruent with your reasoning.

(keep the rebuttals coming, as I thought of all of them already)

[generalizethis]

I edited my post. Please re-read.

I would counter that content providers create demand. If I'm a musician, why would I stay on soundcloud and force my followers to listen to endless stop smoking adds if there was a place I could get a reward for my content and the adds are (here's a major question brewing)?

How does that create demand for people to buy STEEM? They will join for free and earn rewards for blogging. No need to buy any STEEM.

How will advertising be handled? A fee based on the option of choosing advertising (or not) would be an interesting proposition--though I'm just throwing out the first thing that comes to mind.

So you are saying the advertisers will pay the blogging rewards. But I already told you many, many times that the revenue from ads is only about $20 per user per year. Not worth user's effort (unless you only pay some users and not others). Why do I need to keep repeating this?

I'm not saying that advertisers will pay for the entire reward. I'm saying that is part of the solution, but the major part will be followers rewarding a successful brand--whether that brand is a musician, a camgirl, or anonymint--content providers spend years building an audience and that audience will pay to reward them for the effort. It's followers who will buy steem, the same way they buy songs on amazon or tokens on chatterbate or gold on reddit (which is the dumbest thing ever since it doesn't go to the one who made the comment).

So you are saying that Steem will migrate away from paying rewards to offering user tipping  

http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/12/17/changetip-must-die/

As long as the user can choose the amount to upvote, then they will be able to tip at their discretion. I'm assuming it will move to a more user defined experience (as it should). My guess is the current method is to distribute the rewards in a controlled manner--think slow burn for orbit.

Tipping does not work. Please go read why. They won't change to tipping because they already stated in the white paper that they know it doesn't work. Read the link I provided above and the cited references.

I'm not really talking about tipping per-se--I'm more talking about paying for content. Let's say I'm a musician who provides original content, this muscian's content is so original (and popular) that there's a whole cottage industry of musicians who edit my materials into their own work (ala Miss K8) or who remake the work into a different genre (think the endless remakes of "Jeff Buckley's" Hallelujah), now if you can provide me with the means to keep content away from those who don't credit the original, then I will use that method to give exclusive access to that material, so that those who I deem worthy (or have paid the piper--this includes advertisers) have first dibs to the work and also are guaranteed to have first access to the marketplace. That's a little more sophisticated than what changetip was doing. The key here is adaptability, they have a platform that change course fairly quickly and have the leadership to steer a good course--so this might not be where it ends up, but I'm contending that this a piece of that puzzle.

[bacchist]

What about the site's rapid growth is the basis for your statement that "Whales dominating which content gets ranked is killing the site"?

[iamnotback]

What about the site's rapid growth is the basis for your statement that "Whales dominating which content gets ranked is killing the site"?

Where is the data? We don't know which signups are unique people and not duplicate Sybils. We don't how many signups end up abandoned. It would help a lot if we had the raw data compiled. But how can we tell which accounts are Sybils?

We are also arguing the sustainable case, not the first few hype months case.

[iamnotback]

I'm not really talking about tipping per-se--I'm more talking about paying for content.

I already rebutted you (did you not read?):

Edit: but even that is irrelevant because bloggers won't force their customers to tip or pay only in STEEM...

You might be able to argue that they will allow users to buy things from bloggers, but users will prefer to use credit card and maybe BTC which they already have. They see no need to convert to STEEM first. Programmers will provide what the users demand. Bloggers don't want to burden their paying users with converting to STEEM first. Golden rule is never make it difficult for people to pay you. Always provide multiple payment options. Bloggers can accept STEEM from those who already have it (i.e. those bloggers who earned STEEM from blogging), but from users who have credit card but no CC or BTC but no STEEM, the blogger would prefer to make it easy for the user to pay otherwise user may not pay. We humans hate hassle points.

[generalizethis]

I'm not really talking about tipping per-se--I'm more talking about paying for content.

I already rebutted you (did you not read?):

Edit: but even that is irrelevant because bloggers won't force their customers to tip or pay only in STEEM...

You might be able to argue that they will allow users to buy things from bloggers, but users will prefer to use credit card and maybe BTC which they already have. They see no need to convert to STEEM first. Programmers will provide what the users demand. Bloggers don't want to burden their paying users with converting to STEEM first. Golden rule is never make it difficult for people to pay you. Always provide multiple payment options. Bloggers can accept STEEM from those who already have it (i.e. those bloggers who earned STEEM from blogging), but from users who have credit card but no CC or BTC but no STEEM, the blogger would prefer to make it easy for the user to pay otherwise user may not pay. We humans hate hassle points.

Of course you refuted my argument (you left out control features--that's innovation, the new way).

[iamnotback]

I'm not really talking about tipping per-se--I'm more talking about paying for content.

I already rebutted you (did you not read?):

Edit: but even that is irrelevant because bloggers won't force their customers to tip or pay only in STEEM...

You might be able to argue that they will allow users to buy things from bloggers, but users will prefer to use credit card and maybe BTC which they already have. They see no need to convert to STEEM first. Programmers will provide what the users demand. Bloggers don't want to burden their paying users with converting to STEEM first. Golden rule is never make it difficult for people to pay you. Always provide multiple payment options. Bloggers can accept STEEM from those who already have it (i.e. those bloggers who earned STEEM from blogging), but from users who have credit card but no CC or BTC but no STEEM, the blogger would prefer to make it easy for the user to pay otherwise user may not pay. We humans hate hassle points.

Of course you refuted my argument (you left out control features--that's innovation, the new way).

I don't understand what you mean "control features"?

[AlexGR]

Steem price can never "collapse" entirely - because the power to "direct" what content dominates a successful media/social platform will always be something of tremendous value to those who want to create and promote trends, commercialize the trends that they create, etc etc.

There is definitely going to be demand, but not on the "user" level. More on the corporate or ultra-whale level.

Non-sequitor. Whales dominating which content gets ranked is killing the site. So your "successful" assumption is in-congruent with your reasoning.

(keep the rebuttals coming, as I thought of all of them already)

It's not working because current whales aren't doing their work right in terms of curation... The human factor is at fault here, not the system itself. The system may have economic problems in the "leaking" of money through the liquidity system, steem dollar interest etc, because ultimately you can only leak so much before the leak brings you down.

Let's say price depreciates and I can start buying a lot of steem or steem power accounts. Then I can do the curation with a higher standard, elevate the platform, AND use my power to influence things/trends or commercialize it.

[iamnotback]

Steem price can never "collapse" entirely - because the power to "direct" what content dominates a successful media/social platform will always be something of tremendous value to those who want to create and promote trends, commercialize the trends that they create, etc etc.

There is definitely going to be demand, but not on the "user" level. More on the corporate or ultra-whale level.

Non-sequitor. Whales dominating which content gets ranked is killing the site. So your "successful" assumption is in-congruent with your reasoning.

(keep the rebuttals coming, as I thought of all of them already)

It's not working because current whales aren't doing their work right in terms of curation... The human factor is at fault here, not the system itself.

Power corrupts absolutely. Has always been so for 6000 years. Won't change. Whales controlling content is the antithesis of what we want to be doing. Kills degrees-of-freedom (which by the way is the potential energy of any system!).

When you understand the degrees-of-freedom is directly related to potential energy, you might start to get some clue that top-down systems have lower potential energy than decentralized ones.

[generalizethis]

I'm not really talking about tipping per-se--I'm more talking about paying for content.

I already rebutted you (did you not read?):

Edit: but even that is irrelevant because bloggers won't force their customers to tip or pay only in STEEM...

You might be able to argue that they will allow users to buy things from bloggers, but users will prefer to use credit card and maybe BTC which they already have. They see no need to convert to STEEM first. Programmers will provide what the users demand. Bloggers don't want to burden their paying users with converting to STEEM first. Golden rule is never make it difficult for people to pay you. Always provide multiple payment options. Bloggers can accept STEEM from those who already have it (i.e. those bloggers who earned STEEM from blogging), but from users who have credit card but no CC or BTC but no STEEM, the blogger would prefer to make it easy for the user to pay otherwise user may not pay. We humans hate hassle points.

Of course you refuted my argument (you left out control features--that's innovation, the new way).

I don't understand what you mean "control features"?

It was mentioned above, but let's delve into a use case for advertisers.

So we assume the artist is established.

We assume that advertisers have trouble getting the attention of public.

Control features built into the steemit platform (who gets access, how much access, time of access, ect) allow the artist to offer materials for sale (membership, bounty, bid) and the advertiser can quickly get ad to public, and likely use the artist's userbase, to target population segment. Control features. This can be developed much deeper and further, but that's your expertise--I'm good at general strategy (know thyself).

[iamnotback]

I'm not really talking about tipping per-se--I'm more talking about paying for content.

I already rebutted you (did you not read?):

Edit: but even that is irrelevant because bloggers won't force their customers to tip or pay only in STEEM...

You might be able to argue that they will allow users to buy things from bloggers, but users will prefer to use credit card and maybe BTC which they already have. They see no need to convert to STEEM first. Programmers will provide what the users demand. Bloggers don't want to burden their paying users with converting to STEEM first. Golden rule is never make it difficult for people to pay you. Always provide multiple payment options. Bloggers can accept STEEM from those who already have it (i.e. those bloggers who earned STEEM from blogging), but from users who have credit card but no CC or BTC but no STEEM, the blogger would prefer to make it easy for the user to pay otherwise user may not pay. We humans hate hassle points.

Of course you refuted my argument (you left out control features--that's innovation, the new way).

I don't understand what you mean "control features"?

It was mentioned above, but let's delve into a use case for advertisers.

So we assume the artist is established.

We assume that advertisers have trouble getting the attention of public.

Control features built into the steemit platform (who gets access, how much access, time of access, ect) allow the artist to offer materials for sale (membership, bounty, bid) and the advertiser can quickly get ad to public, and likely use the artist's userbase, to target population segment. Control features. This can be developed much deeper and further, but that's your expertise--I'm good at general strategy (know thyself).

You have not described any way to escape from that fact that sellers never want to force buyers to use a token they don't already have. Sellers want to take any fungible, liquid unit-of-exchange the customer has to pay with. Because sellers hate attrition (loss of customers due to pain points).

This is a golden rule of commerce.

[generalizethis]

I'm not really talking about tipping per-se--I'm more talking about paying for content.

I already rebutted you (did you not read?):

Edit: but even that is irrelevant because bloggers won't force their customers to tip or pay only in STEEM...

You might be able to argue that they will allow users to buy things from bloggers, but users will prefer to use credit card and maybe BTC which they already have. They see no need to convert to STEEM first. Programmers will provide what the users demand. Bloggers don't want to burden their paying users with converting to STEEM first. Golden rule is never make it difficult for people to pay you. Always provide multiple payment options. Bloggers can accept STEEM from those who already have it (i.e. those bloggers who earned STEEM from blogging), but from users who have credit card but no CC or BTC but no STEEM, the blogger would prefer to make it easy for the user to pay otherwise user may not pay. We humans hate hassle points.

Of course you refuted my argument (you left out control features--that's innovation, the new way).

I don't understand what you mean "control features"?

It was mentioned above, but let's delve into a use case for advertisers.

So we assume the artist is established.

We assume that advertisers have trouble getting the attention of public.

Control features built into the steemit platform (who gets access, how much access, time of access, ect) allow the artist to offer materials for sale (membership, bounty, bid) and the advertiser can quickly get ad to public, and likely use the artist's userbase, to target population segment. Control features. This can be developed much deeper and further, but that's your expertise--I'm good at general strategy (know thyself).

You have not described any way to escape from that fact that sellers never want to force buyers to use a token they don't already have.

This is a golden rule of commerce.

Good point, let me think about it.

(why not girls? https://chaturbate.com/female-cams/) Sooooo NSFW