Steem pyramid scheme revealed

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Another example where smooth and are not always like-minded on voting and this is another example that we need to fix the voting algorithm to group like-mindedness (i.e. I should have not seen this blog post so highly ranked as it was irrelevant for me):

I downvoted this shit because the playmate was doing what she does best, and which is a fact of our society and the way the mating game works. You are just parasiting on her coattails and adding value only for those who are jealous and/or incapable of accepting facts of life and mating game theory.

I am not arguing that the playmate should have received $16,000 for her blog post, but that is not her fault. It is the fault of the voting rewards algorithm design of Steem.

Tipping the playmate or any poster who is showing skin, is not much different then being in a strip club and tipping a stripper. As is now, if steemit system is letting this stuff get on page one, then steemit is in effect encouraging it. Which make steemit a virtual stripclub, or playboy.

Anyone remember this line, "I only read it for the articles"

The Larimers and their associates are pimps 2.0 pure and simple.  They are making money by promoting (aka upvoting) this trash to entice the weak-minded morons to come see their prostitutes.  All the while they are dumping their Steem Dollars into the market which is propped up by these same weak-minded suckers who are buying in.  Once the Larimers use these "girls" to work over the saps, they'll leave with their real money BTC/USD and the "girls" and suckers will be left with worthless "Steem Dollars" which can't even be cashed out for two years.

[Spoetnik]

Another example where smooth and are not always like-minded on voting and this is another example that we need to fix the voting algorithm to group like-mindedness (i.e. I should have not seen this blog post so highly ranked as it was irrelevant for me):

I downvoted this shit because the playmate was doing what she does best, and which is a fact of our society and the way the mating game works. You are just parasiting on her coattails and adding value only for those who are jealous and/or incapable of accepting facts of life and mating game theory.

I am not arguing that the playmate should have received $16,000 for her blog post, but that is not her fault. It is the fault of the voting rewards algorithm design of Steem.

Tipping the playmate or any poster who is showing skin, is not much different then being in a strip club and tipping a stripper. As is now, if steemit system is letting this stuff get on page one, then steemit is in effect encouraging it. Which make steemit a virtual stripclub, or playboy.

Anyone remember this line, "I only read it for the articles"

The Larimers and their associates are pimps 2.0 pure and simple.  They are making money by promoting (aka upvoting) this trash to entice the weak-minded morons to come see their prostitutes.  All the while they are dumping their Steem Dollars into the market which is propped up by these same weak-minded suckers who are buying in.  Once the Larimers use these "girls" to work over the saps, they'll leave with their real money BTC/USD and the "girls" and suckers will be left with worthless "Steem Dollars" which can't even be cashed out for two years.

I actually agree with you  

Crazy how we have such mixed views eh boys ? LOL

I see nothing good about Steem.
Although about 2003 / 2004 i made a series of steam cracks & emulators i put online
that was *sometimes* called Steem.. so everything i see on this reminds me off my old cracking work.

You guys recycle shit like crazy..
Like XPM was my tag i put on uploaded pirated content because of my name XPMULE
a decade+ before this coin shit.

Tacking some scheme that is rigged onto an ICO then yammering on about Block-Chains is legit ?
ya uhhh sure.. trade them on Poloniex guys ..let me know how that works out for ya

I have an idea for an ass-scratching coin.. will be doing my 5 million dollar ICO soon
Pay me assholes !
..hey sometimes your butt gets itchy
SO.. better ICO it before someone else beats me to it !

[bones261]

@Spoetnik. Steemit was not an ICO. The initial distribution was done with a "sneaky" mine. Although the mining phase was announced before it started, it apparently had minimal instructions on how to do it. This meant that the development team mined the vast majority of the coins. There apparently were a few others that managed to figure out how to mine as well. Now most of these coins are in a fund so they can offer people 3 Steem Power for signing up with Steemit. Was the initial distribution the most fair? Not really. 

[smooth]

when I had to reverse engineer what they were doing from the source code

The white paper wasn't available? If you figured out the white paper from the source code, I am impressed.

White paper wasn't available until later.

[Spoetnik]

@Spoetnik. Steemit was not an ICO. The initial distribution was done with a "sneaky" mine. Although the mining phase was announced before it started, it apparently had minimal instructions on how to do it. This meant that the development team mined the vast majority of the coins. There apparently were a few others that managed to figure out how to mine as well. Now most of these coins are in a fund so they can offer people 3 Steem Power for signing up with Steemit. Was the initial distribution the most fair? Not really. 

Thanks yeah i forgot while i was worked up ranting away LOL

The start of it was not my point here commenting.

And some good topics wee laid out explaining it all with Steem too !

[smooth]

What you see is a function of the front end, and currently there are only 6 ways to browse, none of them without their flaws.

Very, very soon, the follower feature will be activated and there will be an entirely different way to browse. Some people may be interested in the global pending-payout leaderboard (current default front page), others not.

 

Another example where smooth and are not always like-minded on voting and this is another example that we need to fix the voting algorithm to group like-mindedness (i.e. I should have not seen this blog post so highly ranked as it was irrelevant for me ... although while the voting rewards and ranking algorithm is what it is, then this is relevant for me and causes discord):

I downvoted this “shit” because the playmate was doing what she does best, and which is a fact of our society and the way the mating game works. You are just parasiting on her coattails and adding value only for those who are jealous and/or incapable of accepting facts of life and mating game theory.

I am not arguing that the playmate should have received $16,000 for her blog post, but that is not her fault. It is the fault of the voting rewards and ranking algorithm design of Steem. Note that while the algorithm is what is, then this blog posts appears to me and is relevant in the sense that I need to post to argue that your post is irrelevant to me in an more correctly designed ranking system. But for now, it is relevant (and thus not shit), because the algorithm causes discord and I need to post my objection.

[iamnotback]

when I had to reverse engineer what they were doing from the source code

The white paper wasn't available? If you figured out the white paper from the source code, I am impressed.

White paper wasn't available until later.

Impressive. So you mentioned our past (written) conversations might have influenced you to be tuned in to the possible value which might have influenced you to expend that effort to climb down the rabbit hole into the source code. Again that is impressive sleuthing.

I remember reading Dan's blog about how to do (and as compared to an ICO, the potential legality advantages of) a sneaky mine (which was around the time I was just starting to transition my understanding about the legalities of issuing crypto-currencies to my current stance) and I remember you taking note of it publicly on BCT. And I do remember pointing you towards the Larimers last year, and then myself just walking away after a few minutes in their Bitshares forum because I could see the governance for funding model of DPoS was REKTED which Dan now admits (he reiterates this in the recent interview with the @dollarvigilente). And I remember being aware of the plans for Peerplays as I was working on Jambox. But I don't watch ANNs because I am not into mining. And besides I was spread far too thin to be climbing down more rabbit holes than I already am.

[iamnotback]

Very, very soon, the follower feature will be activated and there will be an entirely different way to browse. Some people may be interested in the global pending-payout leaderboard (current default front page), others not.

Dan and Ned mentioned in the @dollarvigilante interview that the follow feeds should be live within a few more days or less.

Sometimes when I load Steemit, I seem to get the "active" board instead of "trending" even though I don't remember selecting "active".

So follow (Facebook friends and follows) + shares (akin to Facebook invites and Likes) and then we basically have a Facebook clone for discovering new (for now blog) content. And Facebook is adding in-app content (blogs, etc).

Thus upvotes should be more widely distributed due to more varied ways that users find content. But quadratic weighting will still apply to rewards, so afaics rewards will remain skewed by a financial incentive for groupthink for as long as quadratic weighting remains; and I explained upthread why I think it is a game theory catastrophe for Steem (within Steem's design for the attributes of STEEM vs. STEEM POWER, which afaics can't be changed in Steem's vested interests) to switch to linear weighting.

The other problem is that Facebook shares become spamming. My gf has even complained about this. It is because following someone for what they write does not mean you desire to follow everything they want to share with you. One example is your friends can spam you with invites for shit they are being paid to invite you to. Alternatively if Steem limits following to only the content of the person we are following (not sharings from them of other content), then follow feeds are not a way to browse new diverse new content so users must employ the existing ways to browse for that:

Facebook uses a lot of algorithms to determine if you will like certain posts or not. They will study you behavior and only deliver you similar content every day. That gets very boring once you figured the system out. There won’t be anything new in your newsfeed and you will start to see the same content from the same people...

This is a very good blog post. I don't usually gush but this is exceptionally astute.

Thus as explained, I still observe areas for innovation in the Steem concept in the area of content ranking and relevance. This is in addition to a major innovation I see in better structuring the system for a medium-term investment option and a better long-term investment motivation than current design of Steem. As well as eliminating the excessively large 80 - 90% premine.

Edit: I have conceded that Steem will take the first mover lead and get the most hype. I think a competitor will have to target the medium-term and the ability to cross the chasm to a wider audience by getting serious bloggers to invest in the concept.

Some serious superstar bloggers (e.g. @dollarvigilante) will seriously dedicate to Steem now, especially if their demographics fit to Steem's thus being winners in the quadratic weighting algorithm. But I currently believe the vast majority of serious bloggers will not see the incentive to switch to Steem. If serious and diverse bloggers are disincentivized to move to Steem, this is likely an Achilles Heel of Steem as currently immutably structured.

It can be a chicken-and-egg dilemma in that if Steem can't cross the chasm to diverse demographics, then bloggers can't get enough followers in their demographic, and if serious diverse bloggers don't switch to Steem, then the diverse audience won't come either. More discussion at the other thread.



1. I am still searching for a reference to cite for my last paragraph above, but Steemit no longer shows me all my post history, so I am having to wade through https://steemd.com/@anonymint

2. resorting to google and still haven't found my prior post, but Google has a different idea of relevance than Steem

https://www.google.com/#q=site%3Asteemit.com%20anonymint%20incentive%20blog

Curators are not rewarded, but penalized for taking "risks" voting for relatively unknown content creators.

3. Finally found it and added to the text above:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@ntomaino/the-distribution-monetary-rewards-tradeoff-and-a-proposal-to-accelerate-disruption-of-incumbent-social-networks#@anonymint/re-ntomaino-the-distribution-monetary-rewards-tradeoff-and-a-proposal-to-accelerate-disruption-of-incumbent-social-networks-20160805t035246736z

If Steemit.com is still offline, then go here:

https://steemd.com/steemit/@anonymint/re-ntomaino-the-distribution-monetary-rewards-tradeoff-and-a-proposal-to-accelerate-disruption-of-incumbent-social-networks-20160805t035246736z

[iamnotback]

Not good, there is a not spiraling viral effect and with the 85% attrition rate we may just be in the realm of replacement of abandoned accounts:

That is actually not a positive sign. With viral growth, we should observe rate of account signups increasing exponentially. If you consider the 85% abandonment of accounts which I documented, this looks like roughly in the realm of replacement and not significantly growing usership.

Total accounts doesn't say anything about abandoned accounts no longer in use, which I documented to be in the realm of 85% abandonment rate.

Also plotting on a non-logarithmic chart makes a constant rate of increase look exponential which is mathematically incorrect. See my other comment on this page for more information.

[iamnotback]

anonymint ·  3 hours ago
The 5% calculation appears to me incorrect. I calculate 15 - 21%. You are not factoring for example the 50% payout in STEEM POWER.

arhag  ·  35 minutes ago
No, I am factoring in the payouts in Steem Power. A far more sophisticated analysis of the math is necessary to get more accurate numbers in more realistic scenarios, but I am pretty sure the numbers you have calculated are incorrect. However, by being slightly more careful in my analysis (rather than the first approximation I did for the OP), I find that my original number of 5% was also too low of an estimate in the worst case scenario. It is really more like 6.7%.

First, as I mention before, I am not factoring in the effect of price changes and Steem Dollar conversions on STEEM supply (or the virtual supply used in the code). Trying to factor that in makes things too complicated and requires assuming models for how the price of STEEM will change and how people will convert Steem Dollars. To greatly simplify the analysis I assume that people convert Steem Dollars into STEEM as soon as possible and at the same price at which it was issued (actually I really go further and assume the blockchain skips a step and just gives the bloggers the reward as STEEM rather than Steem Dollars so that they can then convert to Steem Power as soon as possible).

Second, I am looking at the worst case (in terms of maximum inflation of Steem Power) by assuming nearly all of the STEEM is kept in Steem Power at all times. Meaning if people receive rewards in any other form, they convert it into Steem Power as soon as possible.

Converting STEEM into Steem Power (i.e. VESTs) does not change the ratio of STEEM in the vest pool to the total amount of VESTs, whether done by the user or done by the blockchain directly. The only thing that changes (specifically increases) that ratio is when the blockchain directly adds STEEM it issued into the vest pool without creating a corresponding amount of VESTs.

If we define S to be the current virtual supply of STEEM (which with the assumptions above is also exactly the amount of STEEM in the vest pool), then we can approximately say that the blockchain creates 7.894E-5 * S STEEM each hour (90% of which is added directly into the vest pool and the other 10% is given out as rewards which are ultimately all, since this is the worst case scenario we are looking at, converted into Steem Power).

Let S_0 be the virtual supply of STEEM at the start of the year period that we will be analyzing. Let S_n be the virtual supply of STEEM n hours after that start time. Then we can write that S_n = S_0 * (1 + 7.894E-5)^n.

The recurrence relation for updating the total outstanding amount of VEST tokens V_{n+1}(at the time n+1 hours after the start time) is given by

V_{n+1} = V_n (1 + \frac{\Delta s_n}{S_n})
where \Delta s_n is total net amount of STEEM converted into Steem Power (VESTs) within the corresponding hour (because I am lumping these conversions into hour intervals it is actually just an approximation of the real update rule, but good enough for our purposes). The quantity \Delta s_n is given by 7.894E-6 * S_n, since in this worst case scenario I assume all STEEM created for distribution as rewards (the 10% of the total amount created) will all be converted back into Steem Power. I can use the recurrence relation above to write an expression for V_n:

V_n = V_0 ( 1 + 7.894E-6)^n
If a user initially holds v VESTs, which is a fraction f of the total VESTs at that time (so v = f * V_0), then after a year (n = 8766) the total virtual supply of STEEM will be S_{8766} = 2 * S_0 and the total outstanding amount of VEST tokens will be V_{8766} = (1.07165 )* V_0. And so the new fraction of total VESTs the user will hold (assuming they received no more VESTs through rewards or powering up) is f' = v / V_{8766} = 0.93314 * f, which corresponds to a 6.7% decrease over the year in the user's fractional ownership of VEST (and therefore their fractional ownership of the marketcap of STEEM in this worst case scenario). So, if the market cap of STEEM were to stay constant (in USD), the user would need to buy up approximately 6.7% of their holding value each year to maintain the same USD value they started with, thus we can say it amounts to a 6.7% wealth tax (via a hidden inflation tax) on their Steem Power holdings. But this is the worst case scenario where all STEEM is held in Steem Power. In reality, not all of it will be held as Steem Power, and so the actual wealth tax rate for Steem Power holders should be less than 6.7% (again assuming we ignore other complicated effects left out of the above analysis like the Steem Dollar conversion effect).

Unfortunately, since the OP has already paid out, I cannot edit it to correct the 5% number to 6.7%.

https://steemit.com/steem/@arhag/where-does-the-money-come-from-a-look-into-the-economics-of-steem#@anonymint/re-arhag-re-innuendo-re-arhag-where-does-the-money-come-from-a-look-into-the-economics-of-steem-20160725t173848519z

Agreed he has corrected his calculation incorporating the term that I showed he had forgotten and also I have realized that I was stating the delta for my first term. So we both had a mistake.

The correct value is 6.7% where everyone is powering up, and lower than that if many are not powering up.

Note this doesn't change the point that not powering up is a 50% debasement/100% dilution (assuming liquidity rewards are restored, else 46.125% debasement/92.5% dilution). Thus I am still questioning the incentive for long-term investors to power up given the 1 year weighted price risk to cash out and the requirement that they must ramp up transaction (transfers) demand to the level that the STEEM not powering up is at least 10% of the money supply so that SP holders aren't debased.

Also it doesn't change my criticism that they've killled medium-term investment.

Where does the 10% interest paid to holders of Steem Dollars factor in your equations? I don't see.

Please re-read that post as I have corrected it.

In both @arhag and my computations, we are assuming they are converted to STEEM.

Either arhag's computation is wrong or I don't completely understand his formula. In any case, the numbers end up being very close to what he had. I think I have explained it more clearly:

https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power

[joksim299]

Steemit is down right now, but Steemlt.com is available now:

https://www.reddit.com/r/steemit/comments/4vevdt/this_is_a_clone_of_steemitcom_fully_functionnal/

Just replace i with l in your urls.

As I noted on reddit:

Bear in mind that any such web site could be malicious, or become compromised, and steal your keys. I'm not making any accusation here, just a comment on general principles

Personally I wouldn't trust a "replica" site...

I would if I ran it myself.

You can build Steemit clone on your local machine using code from Github. No reason to trust any third party.

[smooth]

Steemit is down right now, but Steemlt.com is available now:

https://www.reddit.com/r/steemit/comments/4vevdt/this_is_a_clone_of_steemitcom_fully_functionnal/

Just replace i with l in your urls.

As I noted on reddit:

Bear in mind that any such web site could be malicious, or become compromised, and steal your keys. I'm not making any accusation here, just a comment on general principles

Personally I wouldn't trust a "replica" site...

I would if I ran it myself.

You can build Steemit clone on your local machine using code from Github. No reason to trust any third party.

Exactly. And no downtime.

[iamnotback]

Hmmm, he may have a point:

Or it's even worse if the reason is simply that people don't wan't more users in steemit because then it will be harder to take profit's from the posts, if this is the case, steemit is rotten from the inside and will collapse withing itself in the future. I really hope this isn't the case, though!

That is potentially a very astute insight. Since the rewards are always proportional to the market cap, the bloggers already on the site, don't really have an incentive to bring more bloggers to the site, unless those new signups also invest their money, which of course most all new signups don't do.

[smooth]

Hmmm, he may have a point:

Or it's even worse if the reason is simply that people don't wan't more users in steemit because then it will be harder to take profit's from the posts, if this is the case, steemit is rotten from the inside and will collapse withing itself in the future. I really hope this isn't the case, though!

That is potentially a very astute insight. Since the rewards are always proportional to the market cap, the bloggers already on the site, don't really have an incentive to bring more bloggers to the site, unless those new signups also invest their money, which of course most all new signups don't do.

I don't think any comment made from the perspective of "my post didn't get votes/money therefore the platform sucks" has any validity, and the way it is presented almost precludes astuteness (even if a correct observation that is at best accidental).

Aside from the obvious butthurt crybaby aspect of it, that isn't a statistically sound analysis.

[iamnotback]

Hmmm, he may have a point:

Or it's even worse if the reason is simply that people don't wan't more users in steemit because then it will be harder to take profit's from the posts, if this is the case, steemit is rotten from the inside and will collapse withing itself in the future. I really hope this isn't the case, though!

That is potentially a very astute insight. Since the rewards are always proportional to the market cap, the bloggers already on the site, don't really have an incentive to bring more bloggers to the site, unless those new signups also invest their money, which of course most all new signups don't do.

I don't think any comment made from the perspective of "my post didn't get votes/money therefore the platform sucks" has any validity, and the way it is presented almost precludes astuteness (even if a correct observation that is at best accidental).

Aside from the obvious butthurt crybaby aspect of it, that isn't a statistically sound analysis.

He ran a marketing campaign and claims the community wasn't that interested to help spread it. He positing (and even says he hopes not) that maybe the reason is existing users don't have an incentive to create more competition for themselves. That seems to make sense to me.

OTOH, users have the incentive to spread the word about Steemit, because they are proud, excited, and driven by ideological motivation. But much better if they also didn't have the disincentive of being diluted in terms of competition for rewards against new signups.

[smooth]

Hmmm, he may have a point:

Or it's even worse if the reason is simply that people don't wan't more users in steemit because then it will be harder to take profit's from the posts, if this is the case, steemit is rotten from the inside and will collapse withing itself in the future. I really hope this isn't the case, though!

That is potentially a very astute insight. Since the rewards are always proportional to the market cap, the bloggers already on the site, don't really have an incentive to bring more bloggers to the site, unless those new signups also invest their money, which of course most all new signups don't do.

I don't think any comment made from the perspective of "my post didn't get votes/money therefore the platform sucks" has any validity, and the way it is presented almost precludes astuteness (even if a correct observation that is at best accidental).

Aside from the obvious butthurt crybaby aspect of it, that isn't a statistically sound analysis.

He ran a marketing campaign and claims the community wasn't that interested to help spread it. He positing (and even says he hopes not) that maybe the reason is existing users don't have an incentive to create more competition for themselves. That seems to make sense to me.

OTOH, users have the incentive to spread the word about Steemit, because they are proud, excited, and driven by ideological motivation. But much better if they also didn't have the disincentive of being diluted in terms of competition for rewards against new signups.

More likely his particular particular idea, pitch, reputation, timing, etc. was poor. Many other marketing campaigns have gotten votes. Most posts don't. Complaining that you didn't get votes is silly at best, and evidence of stupidity at worst. The latter reinforces the idea that the community was correct in not supporting him.

[iamnotback]

Hmmm, he may have a point:

Or it's even worse if the reason is simply that people don't wan't more users in steemit because then it will be harder to take profit's from the posts, if this is the case, steemit is rotten from the inside and will collapse withing itself in the future. I really hope this isn't the case, though!

That is potentially a very astute insight. Since the rewards are always proportional to the market cap, the bloggers already on the site, don't really have an incentive to bring more bloggers to the site, unless those new signups also invest their money, which of course most all new signups don't do.

I don't think any comment made from the perspective of "my post didn't get votes/money therefore the platform sucks" has any validity, and the way it is presented almost precludes astuteness (even if a correct observation that is at best accidental).

Aside from the obvious butthurt crybaby aspect of it, that isn't a statistically sound analysis.

He ran a marketing campaign and claims the community wasn't that interested to help spread it. He positing (and even says he hopes not) that maybe the reason is existing users don't have an incentive to create more competition for themselves. That seems to make sense to me.

OTOH, users have the incentive to spread the word about Steemit, because they are proud, excited, and driven by ideological motivation. But much better if they also didn't have the disincentive of being diluted in terms of competition for rewards against new signups.

More likely his particular particular idea, pitch, reputation, timing, etc. was poor. Many other marketing campaigns have gotten votes. Most posts don't. Complaining that you didn't get votes is silly at best, and evidence of stupidity at worst. The latter reinforces the idea that the community was correct in not supporting him.

Sorry your assumption and malignment ("stupidity"!) of him appears to be incorrectly researched on your part:

Edit1: Currently, we're at this point. People are upvoting this post and I thank you but this is bigger than the post upvotes and people should also support the campaign. At the moment of the edit there's 142 upvotes but only 30 supporters for the campaign. And the goal is to reach the 500 supporters, so please go to the link and support this campaign!

Edit2: Here's the video explaining what's this campaign about and how it works

First of all, I'm not new to marketing and I've been working with agencies for more than 10 Years either in design or marketing strategies. I now how to work a brand and the responsibility one has when promoting a brand. I know the tool to make a strategy, to work the brand, to take it to higher levels

[smooth]

Hmmm, he may have a point:

Or it's even worse if the reason is simply that people don't wan't more users in steemit because then it will be harder to take profit's from the posts, if this is the case, steemit is rotten from the inside and will collapse withing itself in the future. I really hope this isn't the case, though!

That is potentially a very astute insight. Since the rewards are always proportional to the market cap, the bloggers already on the site, don't really have an incentive to bring more bloggers to the site, unless those new signups also invest their money, which of course most all new signups don't do.

I don't think any comment made from the perspective of "my post didn't get votes/money therefore the platform sucks" has any validity, and the way it is presented almost precludes astuteness (even if a correct observation that is at best accidental).

Aside from the obvious butthurt crybaby aspect of it, that isn't a statistically sound analysis.

He ran a marketing campaign and claims the community wasn't that interested to help spread it. He positing (and even says he hopes not) that maybe the reason is existing users don't have an incentive to create more competition for themselves. That seems to make sense to me.

OTOH, users have the incentive to spread the word about Steemit, because they are proud, excited, and driven by ideological motivation. But much better if they also didn't have the disincentive of being diluted in terms of competition for rewards against new signups.

More likely his particular particular idea, pitch, reputation, timing, etc. was poor. Many other marketing campaigns have gotten votes. Most posts don't. Complaining that you didn't get votes is silly at best, and evidence of stupidity at worst. The latter reinforces the idea that the community was correct in not supporting him.

Sorry your assumption and malignment ("stupidity"!) of him appears to be incorrectly researched on your part:

Edit1: Currently, we're at this point. People are upvoting this post and I thank you but this is bigger than the post upvotes and people should also support the campaign. At the moment of the edit there's 142 upvotes but only 30 supporters for the campaign. And the goal is to reach the 500 supporters, so please go to the link and support this campaign!

Edit2: Here's the video explaining what's this campaign about and how it works

First of all, I'm not new to marketing and I've been working with agencies for more than 10 Years either in design or marketing strategies. I now how to work a brand and the responsibility one has when promoting a brand. I know the tool to make a strategy, to work the brand, to take it to higher levels

After looking more closely at that post my opinion of him is further reduced.

That many people don't want to sign up for services that are are going to grab their personal Facebook, Twitter, etc. contacts and promote shit to them is not news. Someone acting upset that Steemit members don't want to do this to support his idea of how a marketing campaign should work is butthurt, yes. And also trolling, and behaving in a hostile manner which will not get more support for his current and future initiatives.

It is quite clear to me the response rate there has literally zero to do with people not wanting competition for rewards.

[iamnotback]

After looking more closely at that post my opinion of him is further reduced.

Care to enlighten what you see which I don't  

I have no fucking idea what you have against the guy. He tried to launch a viral marketing campaign and wanted to reach a measily 500 supported. He was only able to get 30 with 142 upvotes on his first blog post about it.

Then after waiting a while and only reaching 60, he made another blog post and expressed his frustration and he also pondered if maybe Steemians have some disincentive to promote to new signups significantly.

Of course if he had studied the active users, he would realize he is asking for on the order of 3 - 5% response rate, but that isn't entirely unreasonable unless we assume most are Sybil accounts and in that case we really have a small circle-jerk thus far then.

That many people don't want to sign up for services that are are going to grab their personal Facebook, Twitter, etc. contacts and promote shit to them is not news. Someone acting upset that Steemit members don't want to do this to support his idea of how a marketing campaign should work is butthurt, yes. And also trolling, and behaving in a hostile manner which will not get more support for his current and future initiatives.

It is quite clear to me the response rate there has literally zero to do with people not wanting competition for rewards.

I presumed the service is not brain dead otherwise it wouldn't be offered. Thus I presumed it had certain protections about not spamming and only sending out the agreed message.

So this might be an indicator that Steemians are not as devoted to Steem as they pretend to be. And that they don't have a big incentive to bring new people to Steem.

He was very astute. He provided exactly the marketing test I would want to see in order to get some read on those metrics of confluence of adoption rate, motivation and devotion.

It can also be a reflection of a very affluent Western audience (some are snobs, yet some are willing to flash their boobs and otherwise "prostitute" themselves on Steem to maximize audience reaction). Most filipinos would join that in a split second and wouldn't think twice about the dangers of being social.

But you might be correct if that service is shady and/or hasn't explained very clearly the TOS limitations. I will check...

Edit:

We will post this one-time message to your account on
August 13 at 2:30PM EDT. About Support & Privacy

A note on privacy

When you log into Thunderclap using your Twitter, Facebook, or Tumblr account, you’re allowing our platform to share a single message on your behalf. That’s all. We use the absolute minimum permissions possible to post a message on your behalf. The platforms we integrate with sometimes include additional permissions that we do not use and we will not post anything from your friends' accounts.

On further thought, it is probably a combination of that service not being well known and there just not being that many serious supporters of Steem. There might also be a slight lack of incentive for Steemians to bring other users in when it involves any cost/risk whatsoever, meaning there isn't a strong incentive to promote outside of Steem.

[generalizethis]

After looking more closely at that post my opinion of him is further reduced.

Care to enlighten what you see which I don't  

I have no fucking idea what you have against the guy. He tried to launch a viral marketing campaign and wanted to reach a measily 500 supported. He was only able to get 30 with 142 upvotes on his first blog post about it.

Then after waiting a while and only reaching 60, he made another blog post and expressed his frustration and he also pondered if maybe Steemians have some disincentive to promote to new signups significantly.

Of course if he had studied the active users, he would realize he is asking for on the order of 3 - 5% response rate, but that isn't entirely unreasonable unless we assume most are Sybil accounts and in that case we really have a small circle-jerk thus far then.

To tell if this a crypto-circle jerk or not, look at the number of women's articles being posted--this should also indicate how many women are staying--does the front page look like cosmo, a tech magazine, facebook, or a news feed? To me it looks like a little bit of everything--a little bit of a sausage fest, but who knows how many bloggers are playing modern day Robin Hood in the George Eliot manner (JK Rowling for the modern reader).