What do you think of STEEM?

[generalizethis]

I am trying to think of a name for:

A very finely grained like-mindness, crowd rating system. With rewards to those who produce highly ranked content within like-minded coteries.

Is eSteem the best name for that?

Zuckerberg called it facesmash--but missed that it wasn't that users were rating girls "they knew", but that their ratings determined the outcome and gave them control of the outcome. He Also didn't monetize it, but tried to backend advertising schemes on it years later to the disappointment of his base (who were quite happy with free popularity grabs).

I named it coopital:

https://www.namecheap.com/domains/whois/results.aspx?domain=coopital.org

But I think there might be a catchier name.

Like steemit? The lead's there, anything you start will hinge on its failure, rather than it being supplanted by a better, but still similar, implementation. You also have to consider that a hundred other developers are chomping at the bit if this things looks the slightest bit wobbly.

But putting all that aside, what is coopital? I was thinking captcha.com would be catchy, but it's owned--though captcha.club is 59.99 and not so terrible.

Coopital is name for a cooperative DAO concept.

Btw, I just registered:

flockwi.se

But I don't think it is best name I could come up with for a STEEM competitor. I decided to register it as it could also be a better name than coopital for a DAO like concept. The wisdom of the crowd is the concept behind Steem.

But there is a catchier (shorter than Steemit) name, I just can't mention it yet, because we are negotiating the price.

Steem's design is failing now I think. You just can't see it because you can't see the attrition rate and you also can't see if long-term investors are buying STEEM POWER.

Even if the attrition rate is reasonable and long-term investors are buying STEEM POWER (and I don't mean users converting their payout STEEM to STEEM POWER, I mean BTC traded for STEEM powered up to STEEM POWER), there are a lot of people who did not get into Steem early enough and there was 80% mined to a few people. So many people are probably eager for something more fairly launched and especially if it has design that is doesn't debase medium-term investors by 100% per year.

Egh. Facebook's strategy was to go to the most prestigious universities first and create exclusivity (therefore demand), Steemit's strategy should be to create competition between content providers--which is what I think they are doing. One big name and this goes viral--why would that name enter the arena while they are in beta? That would be terrible planning. Work out the bugs, grab headlines and build from there. The great BTC nerdom is impressed that cute girls are signing up, how do you think they'll react when Beyoncé makes a post? I'm sure what your thinking is better, but unless you can go back in time with a team, you're probably out of luck.

But, please, please, if you go forward let your gf pick a name or something--they're never that great. You over think them.

[1715109965]

1715109965

[1715109965]

1715109965

[1715109965]

1715109965

[1715109965]

1715109965

[iamnotback]

https://steemit.com/steemit/@generalizethis/the-content-network

I know you are excited to find a blockchain app that you can use for writing and expression("get rich instantly" deluded groupthink). But there is no way the world is going to adopt a blockchain 80% owned by the Larimers Incorporated.

Also I think I have explained that the incentive for long-term investors is not very good, because they must lockup their investment for 2 years and there is as yet no clarity on how this exponential debasement model will ever be funded.

I think you are failing to realize that secure, and fast, distribution of tokens between content creators (whether they're on steemit or not) is what breaks this open--you posted https://steemit.com/steemit/@anonymint/it-s-so-easy-to-become-a-millionaire-with-steem , so don't pin the get-rich-quick-mind-fuck on me. As I've wrote numerous times, I'm playing with house money and am happy to do so without ever investing a dime.

The point of my blog was absolutely not "get rich quick". It was to appease those who were only getting small payouts and explain that with 5 years of methodical blogging, you'd probably end up wealthy if Steem doesn't fail due to some other reason. I have since done more in depth analysis of the math of Steem variables and to me it looks very unattractive for long-term investors to buy STEEM POWER.

It is not yet clear how investors would be rewarded by fast transfers of STEEM between content creators. There is no mechanism to transfer value to the investors, except I guess if demand for STEEM becomes so very great then the ratio of SP to STEEM will drop much below 9, then the SP holders would be earning a compounding interest rate per the recent math I showed. But we are talking about needing $10 billions of transactional demand yearly for STEEM within a few years. There is no mechanism in the Steem protocol to scale back rewards on blogging other than to decrease the price and shrink the market capitalization. So if the rate of transaction growth can't keep up, then the price must drop.

That is a very bad deal for long-term investors. Far too risky. It is a fatal error. Not to mention that the Larimers Incorporated have taken too big of a share of the pie.

[generalizethis]

https://steemit.com/steemit/@generalizethis/the-content-network

I know you are excited to find a blockchain app that you can use for writing and expression("get rich instantly" deluded groupthink). But there is no way the world is going to adopt a blockchain 80% owned by the Larimers Incorporated.

Also I think I have explained that the incentive for long-term investors is not very good, because they must lockup their investment for 2 years and there is as yet no clarity on how this exponential debasement model will ever be funded.

I think you are failing to realize that secure, and fast, distribution of tokens between content creators (whether they're on steemit or not) is what breaks this open--you posted https://steemit.com/steemit/@anonymint/it-s-so-easy-to-become-a-millionaire-with-steem , so don't pin the get-rich-quick-mind-fuck on me. As I've wrote numerous times, I'm playing with house money and am happy to do so without ever investing a dime.

The point of my blog was absolutely not "get rich quick". It was to appease those who were only getting small payouts and explain that with 5 years of methodical blogging, you'd probably end up wealthy if Steem doesn't fail due to some other reason. I have since done more in depth analysis of the math of Steem variables and to me it looks very unattractive for long-term investors to buy STEEM POWER.

It is not yet clear how investors would be rewarded by fast transfers of STEEM between content creators. There is no mechanism to transfer value to the investors, except I guess if demand for STEEM becomes so very great then the ratio of SP to STEEM will drop much below 9, then the SP holders would be earning a compounding interest rate per the recent math I showed. But we are talking about needing $10 billions of transactional demand yearly for STEEM within a few years. There is no mechanism in the Steem protocol to scale back rewards on blogging other than to decrease the price and shrink the market capitalization. So if the rate of transaction growth can't keep up, then the price must drop.

That is a very bad deal for long-term investors. Far too risky. It is a fatal error. Not to mention that the Larimers Incorporated have taken too big of a share of the pie.

Companies play the do or die risk game, sometimes they win and sometimes they lose, Apple's done it a few times, Musk has played that game as well as anyone, investors take that risk every day, so to say that it is "Far too risky" is wrong--the most they can risk is everything and investors have taken that pledge year after year after year....

A perfect plan does not exist, you need adaptable and good enough.

[iamnotback]

Companies play the do or die risk game, sometimes they win and sometimes they lose, Apple's done it a few times, Musk has played that game as well as anyone, investors take that risk every day, so to say that it is "Far too risky" is wrong--the most they can risk is everything and investors have taken that pledge year after year after year....

A perfect plan does not exist, you need adaptable and good enough.

Any investor who is investing while Steem is ostensibly hiding the attrition rate data (by failing to produce it), is I think not a professional investor.

When Steem publishes the full data for us to analyze without having to go write some blockchain analysis tool, then we can have a more rational discussion about the perspective investors are likely to take.

Also there is no competitor to Steem yet, for investors to choose between. Given a choice between an illiquid lockup of 2 years, or a liquid investment with less debasement and a better overall model, then investors might act rationally. 

[generalizethis]

Companies play the do or die risk game, sometimes they win and sometimes they lose, Apple's done it a few times, Musk has played that game as well as anyone, investors take that risk every day, so to say that it is "Far too risky" is wrong--the most they can risk is everything and investors have taken that pledge year after year after year....

A perfect plan does not exist, you need adaptable and good enough.

Any investor who is investing while Steem is ostensibly hiding the attrition rate data (by failing to produce it), is I think not a professional investor.

When Steem publishes the full data for us to analyze without having to go write some blockchain analysis tool, then we can have a more rational discussion about the perspective investors are likely to take.

Also there is no competitor to Steem yet, for investors to choose between. Given a choice between an illiquid lockup of 2 years, or a liquid investment with less debasement and a better overall model, then investors might act rationally. 

A rational investor will realize that it is probably an angel investment that is hit or miss and that waiting for competition to arrive isn't very rational.

[iamnotback]

I am trying to think of a name for:

A very finely grained like-mindness, crowd rating system. With rewards to those who produce highly ranked content within like-minded coteries.

Is eSteem the best name for that?

Zuckerberg called it facesmash--but missed that it wasn't that users were rating girls "they knew", but that their ratings determined the outcome and gave them control of the outcome. He Also didn't monetize it, but tried to backend advertising schemes on it years later to the disappointment of his base (who were quite happy with free popularity grabs).

I named it coopital:

https://www.namecheap.com/domains/whois/results.aspx?domain=coopital.org

But I think there might be a catchier name.

Like steemit? The lead's there, anything you start will hinge on its failure, rather than it being supplanted by a better, but still similar, implementation. You also have to consider that a hundred other developers are chomping at the bit if this things looks the slightest bit wobbly.

But putting all that aside, what is coopital? I was thinking captcha.com would be catchy, but it's owned--though captcha.club is 59.99 and not so terrible.

Coopital is name for a cooperative DAO concept.

Btw, I just registered:

flockwi.se

But I don't think it is best name I could come up with for a STEEM competitor. I decided to register it as it could also be a better name than coopital for a DAO like concept. The wisdom of the crowd is the concept behind Steem.

But there is a catchier (shorter than Steemit) name, I just can't mention it yet, because we are negotiating the price.

Steem's design is failing now I think. You just can't see it because you can't see the attrition rate and you also can't see if long-term investors are buying STEEM POWER.

Even if the attrition rate is reasonable and long-term investors are buying STEEM POWER (and I don't mean users converting their payout STEEM to STEEM POWER, I mean BTC traded for STEEM powered up to STEEM POWER), there are a lot of people who did not get into Steem early enough and there was 80% mined to a few people. So many people are probably eager for something more fairly launched and especially if it has design that is doesn't debase medium-term investors by 100% per year.

Egh. Facebook's strategy was to go to the most prestigious universities first and create exclusivity (therefore demand), Steemit's strategy should be to create competition between content providers--which is what I think they are doing. One big name and this goes viral--why would that name enter the arena while they are in beta? That would be terrible planning. Work out the bugs, grab headlines and build from there. The great BTC nerdom is impressed that cute girls are signing up, how do you think they'll react when Beyoncé makes a post? I'm sure what your thinking is better, but unless you can go back in time with a team, you're probably out of luck.

But, please, please, if you go forward let your gf pick a name or something--they're never that great. You over think them.

Coopital and flockwi.se are names for a crowd funding DAO concept. They are not names chosen to compete with the name Steemit. Are you saying those are not reasonable names for a crowdfunding site based on cooperating with our capital and the wisdom of our flock in managing capital?

I already told you I have one domain name under consideration which is shorter than Steemit and much more catchy and simple. And no my gf didn't select it. She is sleeping.

It is not clear yet if Steem can cross the chasm from gfs of blockchain nerds being coaxed by their bfs to post on Steem, to a wider demographic. Remember Beyonce and professional investors measure importance in terms of the demographic's global share of the population. Blockchain nerds and their bitches isn't likely a very large share of the population.

[iamnotback]

Companies play the do or die risk game, sometimes they win and sometimes they lose, Apple's done it a few times, Musk has played that game as well as anyone, investors take that risk every day, so to say that it is "Far too risky" is wrong--the most they can risk is everything and investors have taken that pledge year after year after year....

A perfect plan does not exist, you need adaptable and good enough.

Any investor who is investing while Steem is ostensibly hiding the attrition rate data (by failing to produce it), is I think not a professional investor.

When Steem publishes the full data for us to analyze without having to go write some blockchain analysis tool, then we can have a more rational discussion about the perspective investors are likely to take.

Also there is no competitor to Steem yet, for investors to choose between. Given a choice between an illiquid lockup of 2 years, or a liquid investment with less debasement and a better overall model, then investors might act rationally.  

A rational investor will realize that it is probably an angel investment that is hit or miss and that waiting for competition to arrive isn't very rational.

I said given a choice of competitors. I didn't say anything about waiting. Reading comprehension please, so you don't bloat my post count today. I appreciated your prior posts playing devil's advocate. I need that.

[generalizethis]

Companies play the do or die risk game, sometimes they win and sometimes they lose, Apple's done it a few times, Musk has played that game as well as anyone, investors take that risk every day, so to say that it is "Far too risky" is wrong--the most they can risk is everything and investors have taken that pledge year after year after year....

A perfect plan does not exist, you need adaptable and good enough.

Any investor who is investing while Steem is ostensibly hiding the attrition rate data (by failing to produce it), is I think not a professional investor.

When Steem publishes the full data for us to analyze without having to go write some blockchain analysis tool, then we can have a more rational discussion about the perspective investors are likely to take.

Also there is no competitor to Steem yet, for investors to choose between. Given a choice between an illiquid lockup of 2 years, or a liquid investment with less debasement and a better overall model, then investors might act rationally.  

A rational investor will realize that it is probably an angel investment that is hit or miss and that waiting for competition to arrive isn't very rational.

I said given a choice of competitors. I didn't say anything about waiting. Reading comprehension please, so you don't bloat my post count today. I appreciated your prior posts playing devil's advocate. I need that.

They would have to wait  to be given the opportunity, so it was less misreading and more inferring the obvious (just sayin').

Now, here's the thing no one is talking about. Now companies can offer cheap bounties for creative content and get cheaper rates because it is a global competition with a global payment system.

[iamnotback]

Now, here's the thing no one is talking about. Now companies can offer cheap bounties for creative content and get cheaper rates because it is a global competition with a global payment system.

I see nothing new there. I see no features coded for that. Vaporware. Please address my statement in bold text above.

[iamnotback]

Steemit's strategy should be to create competition between content providers--which is what I think they are doing.

Disagree. The strategy should be to match content to content consumers in a harmonious and mutually uplifting social experience. Not a cutthroat one-size-fits-all groupthink dominated by blocknerds.

[generalizethis]

Now, here's the thing no one is talking about. Now companies can offer cheap bounties for creative content and get cheaper rates because it is a global competition with a global payment system.

I see nothing new there. I see no features coded for that. Vaporware. Please address my statement in bold text above.

The bolded is the billion dollar question. If you could answer it, you could make a fortune on steem futures. I'm betting house money on the house, you're talking about a time investment, much easier for me to decide given the circumstances.

[iamnotback]

Until I see diverse sub-communities sprouting, I see the opportunity is wide open for competitors.

I'm starting to lean towards betting against it, because I don't see the design decisions made from the perspective of maximizing social networking. The design decisions appear to have been made to maximize insiders pump & dump.

It appears to be another delusion to capture the money of the blocknerds.

Another Ethereum. Sexy but lacking social networking substance. (The blockchain tech is substantial)

[generalizethis]

Steemit's strategy should be to create competition between content providers--which is what I think they are doing.

Disagree. The strategy should be to match content to content consumers in a harmonious and mutually uplifting social experience. Not a cutthroat one-size-fits-all groupthink dominated by blocknerds.

"Idealism, hi! Meet, nature."

[iamnotback]

Steemit's strategy should be to create competition between content providers--which is what I think they are doing.

Disagree. The strategy should be to match content to content consumers in a harmonious and mutually uplifting social experience. Not a cutthroat one-size-fits-all groupthink dominated by blocknerds.

"Idealism, hi! Meet, nature."

Ethereum met nature, and Bruce Wanker explained it.

Remember I was stating from the beginning that Ethereum wouldn't work and everybody was so happy to ignore me.

I am not talking idealism. I am talking about what is essential.

[criptix]

Steem has no economic model which produces profit.

The only thing that keeps the house of card afloat are speculators who are pumping steem which in turn creates a bigger money incentive for steem users.
More users seem to create an incentive for speculators - kind of positive feedback until one of the two stops or declines.

For now atleast the price seems to decline. Lets see how long until people get angry...

Btw. Seems the sig spammers/shit posters are migrating to steem

[generalizethis]

Steemit's strategy should be to create competition between content providers--which is what I think they are doing.

Disagree. The strategy should be to match content to content consumers in a harmonious and mutually uplifting social experience. Not a cutthroat one-size-fits-all groupthink dominated by blocknerds.

"Idealism, hi! Meet, nature."

Ethereum met nature, and Bruce Wanker explained it.

Remember I was stating from the beginning what wouldn't work and everybody was so happy to ignore me.

You and Roach nailed Eth to the wall and I acknowledge it in that thread. But this is a different animal, current centralization doesn't necessarily impede what it is trying to accomplish--though there are a lot of complex factors at play. What I'm telling people in my life is to, "sign-up, if you have a talent to express, express and hopefully get a payout, and then reinvest the reward. " Anyone investing their life savings or kid's college fund is an idiot--this is angel investment level risk and success rates for that are 1 in 10, 1 in 15? The point of angel investing is that the payoffs are ridiculous and warrant the associated risk.

[s1gs3gv]

No barrier to entry for competitors, therefore no long term intrinsic value, therefore a speculative vehicle only.

[generalizethis]

No barrier to entry for competitors, therefore no long term intrinsic value, therefore a speculative vehicle only.

Disagree with that to some extent as uber showed that user retention creates network effects--GM is having to pay to play in that market since uber's strategy decimated lyft and sidecar.

How many users are retained is the question, which leads me to use the phrase "...to some extent."

[s1gs3gv]

No barrier to entry for competitors, therefore no long term intrinsic value, therefore a speculative vehicle only.

Disagree with that to some extent as uber showed that user retention creates network effects--GM is having to pay to play in that market since uber's strategy decimated lyft and sidecar.

How many users are retained is the question, which leads me to use the phrase "...to some extent."

Maybe but STEEM doesn't seem to have capitalized very well on the first mover advantage. The quality of its content is quite poor.

Somebody like Medium should consider monetizing its content with its own alt.

[generalizethis]

No barrier to entry for competitors, therefore no long term intrinsic value, therefore a speculative vehicle only.

Disagree with that to some extent as uber showed that user retention creates network effects--GM is having to pay to play in that market since uber's strategy decimated lyft and sidecar.

How many users are retained is the question, which leads me to use the phrase "...to some extent."

Maybe but STEEM doesn't seem to have capitalized very well on the first mover advantage. The quality of its content is quite poor.

Somebody like Medium should consider monetizing its content with its own alt.

Quality of content is subjective. I'm sure you could lower that same barrel at BCT or reddit and blast away.