Steemit how can this thing be workable long term?

[AlexGR]

I'm looking at a bot - or someone with bot-like-behavior that enters a large number of threads to make some one liner comment or throw a meme photo

https://steemit.com/@weenis/transfers

His account got to 100$ in something like a day.

The system needs tweaking or something. Bot-resistance should be the strong point.

[bones261]

I'm looking at a bot - or someone with bot-like-behavior that enters a large number of threads to make some one liner comment or throw a meme photo

https://steemit.com/@weenis/transfers

His account got to 100$ in something like a day.

The system needs tweaking or something. Bot-resistance should be the strong point.

His voting power is down to almost 3%. If it's a bot, it is poorly programed. Your voting power goes down rapidly if you spam the upvotes. It recovers much slower.
https://steemd.com/@weenis

[r0ach]

I'm looking at a bot - or someone with bot-like-behavior that enters a large number of threads to make some one liner comment or throw a meme photo

https://steemit.com/@weenis/transfers

His account got to 100$ in something like a day.

The system needs tweaking or something. Bot-resistance should be the strong point.

It seems pretty broken:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@mary777/wang-the-steemit-bot

The fact that there is no real Sybil prevention means it will be gamed to hell and back and will turn into a giant circle jerk of bots.  Delegates/curators/whatever you call them will probably be running the things on the down low.

[iamnotback]

I'm looking at a bot - or someone with bot-like-behavior that enters a large number of threads to make some one liner comment or throw a meme photo

https://steemit.com/@weenis/transfers

His account got to 100$ in something like a day.

The system needs tweaking or something. Bot-resistance should be the strong point.

It seems pretty broken:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@mary777/wang-the-steemit-bot

The fact that there is no real Sybil prevention means it will be gamed to hell and back and will turn into a giant circle jerk of bots.  Delegates/curators/whatever you call them will probably be running the things on the down low.

I already wrote upthread that users could elect to use a bot also, which fights that bot by downvoting its posts.

This problem is solvable.

[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.

Human factors are a consideration that has to be part of the design of any system that interacts with humans. There is no distinction.

In that sense you are right of course. Let's put it another way. If you've paid a fortune for your steem power, you'd want to use it right and curate "responsibly" because not doing so would reflect badly on the platform and by extension it would hurt your holdings. So, in theory, the system should work because it is in the interest of the highly invested curator to do a good job. Even the narrow exploitation/collusion etc should not work for that investor because it would depreciate his holdings in the long run by undermining the platform.

It might be that the problem is located in the fact that initial coins were not valued that much and as such they are not considered a proper "investment" that must be safeguarded by proper practice...

Disagree. The problem is that even if whales are trying their best to vote correctly, it is mathematically impossible for them to create more than one degree-of-freedom in the way their reputation power is grouped; thus like-minded diversity (sub-audiences) are only a hit-and-miss lottery (if a few whales happen to upvote your post together). That was the entire point of my first blog which earned me ~$6500:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@anonymint/improving-steem-s-rankings-to-cater-to-diverse-content-preferences

I don't want to re-explain the mathematical reason nor elaborate at this time. I will do so when it is time to actually implement an improvement. I need to be efficient with my time right now.

This problem is fixable.

[iamnotback]

My argument is people will follow the content providers--if you offer them superior resources (security, content production, billing services {bid, buy, rent, ect} and do this at a cheaper rate than anyone else can offer, then you get stickiness for the content provider and that's all that matters--look at chatterbate and girls getting paid with amazon gifting (people will jump through whatever hoop to get the content they want--barring something outrageous of course.

There are very few narrow markets which can be so unique that no one can get them any where else for fiat.

Chatterbate accepts credit cards:

https://ssl-ccstatic.highwebmedia.com/ccauth.pdf

Note my mind is too hazy because I am very sleepy right now as I haven't slept for about 24 hours (had to go out and do errands before sleeping, just got back to house).

The more I think about this, in the case of STEEM vs. STEEM POWER, then all that really matters is you can get a high rate of transaction flow in and out of the coin. So the savers will cash out to fiat is not a problem. Because all you need is that there are a lot of other people who hold STEEM often (even if each one of them only holds it for a short-time) so that investors who hold STEEM POWER are not effectively paying the debasement cost.

So I think I agree that if you can get people to buy STEEM tokens in order to spend them in the ecosystem, then you will have solved the funding problem.

But remember that a blockchain is not a closed ecosystem. There is no way to force the content creators to only accept STEEM. Users will be able to run any decentralized client. There needs to be some compelling reason for users to want to buy some STEEM and use it to pay with instead of BTC or credit cards.

So with that, I think the problem is still not solved unless there are compelling reasons to pay in STEEM versus credit cards or BTC, but let me check my logic when I wake up....

So to reiterate the point of my last two paragraphs quoted above, the Steem blockchain is orthogonal to the (e.g. steemit.com) client interface. So other developers could create an alternative steemit.com client that interacts with the Steem blockchain, which enables paying with credit cards or Bitcoin. One reason you might be forced to use STEEM instead of Bitcoin, is if STEEM has 5 second instant confirmations (although sometimes Bitcoin also has very fast 0-confirmations). Obviously credit card payments aren't instant nor are they free of chargebacks and high fees, but if what is being paid for doesn't require instant then credit cards are not excluded. And maybe Lightning Networks is coming to bring Bitcoin instant transactions (but LN is a technically complicated system as currently proposed that might end up having some tradeoffs).

So if we want to build exclusivity into STEEM, we want to build things to pay for which require 5 second confirmations.

Yet I have a block chain technology under development which I claim (i.e. not yet peer verified) could do sub-1 second confirmations.

And also I have an idea how to make STEEM very exclusive (even if other blockchains add instant transaction confirmations), but it would require that we abandon the free tokens on signup (which means abandoning the 57 million tokens "pre"-mine). So this sort of indicates to me we should fork Steem and redo it with a corrected design. But I am still contemplating all the factors. There is a lot of analyze and I want to make sure I haven't missed some key point.

I am very much wanting feedback on this point. For me at the moment, this is the most crucial point to analyze.

[AlexGR]

I'm looking at a bot - or someone with bot-like-behavior that enters a large number of threads to make some one liner comment or throw a meme photo

https://steemit.com/@weenis/transfers

His account got to 100$ in something like a day.

The system needs tweaking or something. Bot-resistance should be the strong point.

It seems pretty broken:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@mary777/wang-the-steemit-bot

The fact that there is no real Sybil prevention means it will be gamed to hell and back and will turn into a giant circle jerk of bots.  Delegates/curators/whatever you call them will probably be running the things on the down low.

Can you notify the creators? This is bullshit.

[iamnotback]

Note the red highlighted point:

VERY IMPORTANT

What many people don't realize is that STEEM's price is being debased by 100% per annum. But for STEEM POWER holders this is a 90% reverse-split, meaning they only debased effectively by 10% per annum.

This means that the price of STEEM could drop to half (decline by -50%) yet the STEEM POWER holders would only see a 5% decline (0.5 × 190% = 95%) in the exchange value of their holdings.

Another example implication is that while the STEEM price remains unchanged, the value of STEEM POWER's holdings are increasing 0.176% per day (1.9^1÷365).

Note that holders of STEEM are being debased by 0.19% per day (2^1÷365), which would also be the loss in the exchange value of STEEM holdings while the STEEM price is constant.

If this is very confusing, then you are not alone. This is difficult to explain.

I think it would have been easier to understand if the token had instead been deflationary where the STEEM needed were take from STEEM accounts instead, so that the price would always be rising. This appears to be another key flaw in the psychological design of Steem that could be corrected with a fork.

Edit:  Steem's inflationary choice somewhat disincentivizes speculators from holding STEEM (at all and instead of STEEM POWER) which might add some demand for STEEM POWER, but also reduces the amount of demand for STEEM where the funding model gets its funds.

[AlexGR]

"Another example implication is that while the STEEM price remains unchanged, the value of STEEM POWER's holdings are increasing 1.24% per day (90%1÷365)."

1.24% per day far exceeds 100% over a year. If my excel sheet math is correct, you start at 100 coins and you get to 8985 by day 366.

cell A1 = 100
cell A2 = A1 * 1.0124
cell A3 = A2 * 1.0124
...
cell A366 = A365 * 1.0124 = 8985.24280667947

[CoinHoarder]

My post for today... another proposal. People seem to like those more than my attempts at being funny/satirical posts.

https://steemit.com/proposal/@coinhoarder/steem-proposal-create-different-types-of-posts-for-different-use-cases-greater-than-first-use-case-steemit-reviews

[iamnotback]

Okay now I am both trying to make $1000s with a blog post and also trying to explain many of the deep concepts we've been discussing in this thread:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@anonymint/it-s-so-easy-to-become-a-millionaire-with-steem

That is some of the fruition of my research here. Hope it gets upvotes. I think it deserves to.

I don't know who has already written posts like this with a compounding chart?

[FandangledGizmo]

Reddit raised funds in 2014 at a valuation of $500 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit

Steemit is valued at >$300 million despite having <1/200th the market share of Reddit.

https://steemit.com/steemit/@skapaneas/steemit-analytics-comparing-david-and-goliaths
 
Reddit will generate $30 million revenue in 2016 but will likely still be in the red after expenses.

Steem will generate no revenue in 2016 and have MUCH higher expenses than Reddit because it's paying users for content.

 Over-valued...

[AlexGR]

Reddit raised funds in 2014 at a valuation of $500 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit

Steemit is valued at >$300 million despite having < 0.5% the market share of Reddit.

https://steemit.com/steemit/@skapaneas/steemit-analytics-comparing-david-and-goliaths
 
Reddit will generate $30 million revenue in 2016 but will likely still be in the red after expenses.

Steem will generate no revenue in 2016 and have MUCH higher expenses than Reddit because it's paying users for content.

 Over-valued...

https://steemit.com/steemit/@alexgr/market-value-of-steem-can-become-much-higher-than-reddit-here-is-why

...and I haven't even included the Facebook-commenting/Facebook-discussion oriented crowd in the equation.

[FandangledGizmo]

Reddit raised funds in 2014 at a valuation of $500 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit

Steemit is valued at >$300 million despite having < 0.5% the market share of Reddit.

https://steemit.com/steemit/@skapaneas/steemit-analytics-comparing-david-and-goliaths
 
Reddit will generate $30 million revenue in 2016 but will likely still be in the red after expenses.

Steem will generate no revenue in 2016 and have MUCH higher expenses than Reddit because it's paying users for content.

 Over-valued...

https://steemit.com/steemit/@alexgr/market-value-of-steem-can-become-much-higher-than-reddit-here-is-why

...and I haven't even included the Facebook-commenting/Facebook-discussion oriented crowd in the equation.

Each user on Facebook, Reddit and Twitter has a value based on what investors think they are or will be worth to advertisers (advertising revenue) less the running costs of the business.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2013/11/07/a-twitter-user-is-worth-110-facebooks-98-linkedins-93/#3da863619c12

Steemit has no revenue from advertisers/other to cover running costs and most importantly is paying out large bonuses to attract new users and large amounts for their content. (Which other social media platforms get for free.) So Steemit is just a bottomless pit of expenses and no revenue.

Synereo on the other hand for example does have a business model. A social media site, where the majority of advertising revenue goes to the users in return for consuming advertising content. So that has the potential to be a lucrative, sustainable business model and Facebook killer.

The minute speculators stop buying Steem it may collapse because there is no business model or revenue source only the hope speculators will value a site attracting users and not use common sense.

[iamnotback]

Steem will generate no revenue in 2016 and have MUCH higher expenses than Reddit because it's paying users for content.

Incorrect. I added the following to my blog post to explain it:

Steem is generating revenue for STEEM POWER investors taken from those who hold STEEM instead of STEEM POWER. We need to upgrade our conceptualization of revenue. Revenue is any gain in value not paid by the long-term investors! It is actually quite a clever paradigm-shift innovation on the definition of a revenue generating investment.

[AlexGR]

The minute speculators stop buying Steem it may collapse because there is no business model or revenue source only the hope speculators will value a site attracting users and not use common sense.

The platform itself may not have ads, but the content itself can be ad-style / ad-supported even include gray-advertising. So, in that sense, purchasing steem power also gives you the power to commercialize products and services by reaching a broader audience.

[CoinHoarder]

The minute speculators stop buying Steem it may collapse because there is no business model or revenue source only the hope speculators will value a site attracting users and not use common sense.

The platform itself may not have ads, but the content itself can be ad-style / ad-supported even include gray-advertising. So, in that sense, purchasing steem power also gives you the power to commercialize products and services by reaching a broader audience.

True, whales provide advertising with their up votes. That is why Steemit circle jerk posts make more money because it help create demand for steemit and virality. Steemit success stories make more money for the same reason. Hot girls traveling while making money because they want to attract people that want to do the same (who doesn't want to travel the world for free). "Crypto celebrities" make more money because whales want influential mouthpieces.

Unfortunately, the kind of content I like to post and read about doesn't ever seem likely to make much money. I am starting to get why some people call it unfair. It is free money, so I am not really complaining, but my last posts have been at something like $0.50 a hour... at some point it is probably not worth it.

[iamnotback]

Unfortunately, the kind of content I like to post and read about doesn't ever seem likely to make much money. I am starting to get why some people call it unfair.

I've proposed what I think will improve that:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@anonymint/improving-steem-s-rankings-to-cater-to-diverse-content-preferences

It can also be your writing style and how effectively you communicate. I'll need to check your latest post (didn't have time yet).

[AlexGR]

That's interesting: https://steemit.com/money/@jl777/steem-price-might-double-next-week-liquidity-awards-to-be-temporarily-suspended-new-supply-of-liquid-steem-to-be-reduced

...and from github:

"Due to the controversy of liquidity rewards we are going to evaluate our design and change liquidity rewards if needed. For now, we believe they are not providing enough value to keep around. We have decided to disable liquidity rewards altogether for the time being while we work on a more permanent solution. This is a temporary change. The internal market not charging transaction fees may be enough of an incentive to trade internally that we may not need liquidity rewards at all. All of these aspects will go into our final decision. We encourage the community to voice their thoughts on liquidity rewards and potential changes in a civil and objective manner."

Less leaking/dumping

[CoinHoarder]

It can also be your writing style and how effectively you communicate. I'll need to check your latest post (didn't have time yet).

I don't buy that for a second. My writing skills are at least comparable with the posts that make it to the front page daily. I have made 4.0s in all of the English classes I have taken.

It is the topics I am writing about, and the fact Steemit is a popularity contest. I have never been good at the latter.