Steem pyramid scheme revealed

[iamnotback]

That looks correct. In addition to being a programming issue, VESTS may be more comfortable for traditional accounting since the number of units held doesn't change except in response to specific events (power up, power down, receiving rewards).

Anyone (especially @smooth) feel free to inform or correct me:

Just as a side note, i think my explanation is a bit easier to understand... and more accurate, as its not rooted in money supply theory, which is basically silly anyway.

https://steemit.com/interest/@sigmajin/understanding-the-steem-economic-system-vests-sbd-steem-dilution-interest-and-all-those-crazy-things

https://steemit.com/economics/@chiefjay/where-does-the-money-come-from-part-2-of-my-steem-economic-model

The second one is actually the better of the two, IMO, but ive been told the first one is easier

In my opinion, frankly the second blog is so convoluted and inundated with a overly verbose explanation of the unnecessary complexity of vests, that I just gave up reading it about halfway through. Sorry but IMO it is really bad. That is not the way to simplify explanations. I don't intend to offend you, and I just want to be honest with my reply. I am not downvoting you. No animosity is intended. We are trying to help each other and the community understand.

In my opinion, the first blog is better organized and has more concision making it easier to follow, yet still you introduce this afaics mathematically unnecessary complication of vests. Afaics, the understanding of vests is a programming issue on the backend and it is mathematically irrelevant w.r.t. to understanding the economic structure of Steem, which is why I never mention it as it will only make the explanation of the economic structure of the Steem system more obtuse.

Afaics, there appears to be a mathematical equivalence between my way of conceptualizing (and the UI's way of presenting) SP as units of restricted STEEM coupled with the STEEM being separate units of the money supply where the supply of STEEM is increased ~100% yearly, versus your explanation of SP as vests converted to STEEM units by a ratio which changes as supply of vests increases. Frankly I've never found yet a complete explanation of the way vests are accounted and programmed on the backend, which is another reason I don't discuss them. And I haven't studied the code to figure it out. And I didn't find your explanation of them to be complete and unambiguous. If you'd like to cite a more canonical resource on vests, I'd appreciate that.

Another question?

When SBD is created, its initial backing is supplied by the post's reward STEEM. Any fall in the price of STEEM will result in a rise of the virtual supply (and conversely, any rise in the price of STEEM will result in a fall of the virtual supply).

Ah so the supply of vests is adjusted when the SD (aka SBD) are converted to STEEM.

But I don't understand, then why do I have to sell my SBD on an exchange? Who gets the backing vests then?

And thus the trusted oracles for the exchange rate control the creation of new money supply.

In response to those rewards, steem are created and placed in the vesting fund. Those created steem are what backs SBD

So then why create initial supply of vests before the SBD are converted to STEEM? What purpose does that premature estimate serve? Surely coinmarketcap.com needs to account for the market cap in SP+STEEM+SBD any way, if they want accuracy.

The vesting fund is SP balances.

The vesting fund apparently also includes the backing for SBD.

Are liquid STEEM also backed by specially tagged vests, or are they accounted for separately? I realize it is just irrelevant backend semantics though, i.e. doesn't reflect on the math whether STEEM are named "STEEM" or "vests with a special tag".

[1714784186]

1714784186

[1714784186]

1714784186

[smooth]

Answers (let me know if I missed something):

The supply of VESTS does not change at all when converting SD to STEEM. Not sure where you got that idea? I think VESTS are only created or destroyed by power up, power down, or rewards (that pay in SP/VESTS), unless I'm forgetting something.

If you sell SD on an exchange, literally nothing changes in terms of supply, just the owner of the existing token. That seems kind of obvious, no?

Yes changes in the price of STEEM (as reported by the oracles i.e. witnesses) between the time SD is created and when it is destroyed will influence the money supply (virtual supply; converted to real supply if and when the SD->STEEM conversion takes place). If I'm not mistaken that is covered in the white paper.

There is no special tagging of VESTS nor the STEEM/SP in the vesting fund.

Coinmarketcap's number is kind of made up. I think they excluded some of the steemit account but not all of it, but I'm not really sure. I've never been able to make much sense of their number, but I mostly ignore their market cap numbers on most coins anyway.

 

That looks correct. In addition to being a programming issue, VESTS may be more comfortable for traditional accounting since the number of units held doesn't change except in response to specific events (power up, power down, receiving rewards).

Anyone (especially @smooth) feel free to inform or correct me:

Just as a side note, i think my explanation is a bit easier to understand... and more accurate, as its not rooted in money supply theory, which is basically silly anyway.

https://steemit.com/interest/@sigmajin/understanding-the-steem-economic-system-vests-sbd-steem-dilution-interest-and-all-those-crazy-things

https://steemit.com/economics/@chiefjay/where-does-the-money-come-from-part-2-of-my-steem-economic-model

The second one is actually the better of the two, IMO, but ive been told the first one is easier

In my opinion, frankly the second blog is so convoluted and inundated with a overly verbose explanation of the unnecessary complexity of vests, that I just gave up reading it about halfway through. Sorry but IMO it is really bad. That is not the way to simplify explanations. I don't intend to offend you, and I just want to be honest with my reply. I am not downvoting you. No animosity is intended. We are trying to help each other and the community understand.

In my opinion, the first blog is better organized and has more concision making it easier to follow, yet still you introduce this afaics mathematically unnecessary complication of vests. Afaics, the understanding of vests is a programming issue on the backend and it is mathematically irrelevant w.r.t. to understanding the economic structure of Steem, which is why I never mention it as it will only make the explanation of the economic structure of the Steem system more obtuse.

Afaics, there appears to be a mathematical equivalence between my way of conceptualizing (and the UI's way of presenting) SP as units of restricted STEEM coupled with the STEEM being separate units of the money supply where the supply of STEEM is increased ~100% yearly, versus your explanation of SP as vests converted to STEEM units by a ratio which changes as supply of vests increases. Frankly I've never found yet a complete explanation of the way vests are accounted and programmed on the backend, which is another reason I don't discuss them. And I haven't studied the code to figure it out. And I didn't find your explanation of them to be complete and unambiguous. If you'd like to cite a more canonical resource on vests, I'd appreciate that.

Another question?

When SBD is created, its initial backing is supplied by the post's reward STEEM. Any fall in the price of STEEM will result in a rise of the virtual supply (and conversely, any rise in the price of STEEM will result in a fall of the virtual supply).

Ah so the supply of vests is adjusted when the SD (aka SBD) are converted to STEEM.

But I don't understand, then why do I have to sell my SBD on an exchange? Who gets the backing vests then?

And thus the trusted oracles for the exchange rate control the creation of new money supply.

In response to those rewards, steem are created and placed in the vesting fund. Those created steem are what backs SBD

So then why create initial supply of vests before the SBD are converted to STEEM? What purpose does that premature estimate serve? Surely coinmarketcap.com needs to account for the market cap in SP+STEEM+SBD any way, if they want accuracy.

The vesting fund is SP balances.

The vesting fund apparently also includes the backing for SBD.

Are liquid STEEM also backed by specially tagged vests, or are they accounted for separately? I realize it is just irrelevant backend semantics though, i.e. doesn't reflect on the math whether STEEM are named "STEEM" or "vests with a special tag".

[iamnotback]

Answers (let me know if I missed something):

The supply of VESTS does not change at all when converting SD to STEEM. Not sure where you got that idea? I think VESTS are only created or destroyed by power up, power down, or rewards (that pay in SP/VESTS), unless I'm forgetting something.

If you sell SD on an exchange, literally nothing changes in terms of supply, just the owner of the existing token. That seems kind of obvious, no?

Let me share my edit of my comment, so you can better understand what appears to be ambiguous to me:

When SBD is created, its initial backing is supplied by the post's reward STEEM. Any fall in the price of STEEM will result in a rise of the virtual supply (and conversely, any rise in the price of STEEM will result in a fall of the virtual supply).

Here to you refer to virtual supply so I wanted to presume no new vests are created after the initial creation of SBD, but then you wrote:

• Any losses you get from a decline in STEEM market cap are socialized by creating some more backing STEEM, essentially all other STEEM holders subsidize 100% of "your" losses.
• Any profits you get from an increase in STEEM market cap are socialized by destroying some of the backing STEEM, essentially all other STEEM holders split 100% of "your" gains.

Ah so the supply of vests is adjusted when the SD (aka SBD) are converted to STEEM.

But I don't understand, then why do I have to sell my SBD on an exchange when you could just transfer the backing vested to me? Who gets the backing vests then, or is it impossible to ever retire the SBD so then why do we need the backing vests?

And thus the trusted oracles for the exchange rate control the creation of new money supply.

In response to those rewards, steem are created and placed in the vesting fund. Those created steem are what backs SBD

So then why create initial supply of vests before the SBD are converted to STEEM? What purpose does that premature estimate serve? Surely coinmarketcap.com needs to account for the market cap in SP+STEEM+SBD any way, if they want accuracy.

The vesting fund is SP balances.

The vesting fund apparently also includes the backing for SBD.

Are liquid STEEM also backed by specially tagged vests, or are they accounted for separately? I realize it is just irrelevant backend semantics though, i.e. doesn't reflect on the math whether STEEM are named "STEEM" or "vests with a special tag".

Yes changes in the price of STEEM (as reported by the oracles i.e. witnesses) between the time SD is created and when it is destroyed will influence the money supply (virtual supply; converted to real supply if and when the SD->STEEM conversion takes place). If I'm not mistaken that is covered in the white paper.

Can you tell me where in the white paper? I don't remember reading about the ability to retire/destroy SBD.

There is no special tagging of VESTS nor the STEEM/SP in the vesting fund.

Then how do we know which VESTS to transfer to the party who owns the SBD when a SBD is retired? Or what does it mean to destroy a SBD?

[generalizethis]

The platform is named steemit

Bands with crappy names: Beatles, Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, The Who, Depeche Mode, The Cure....

You are a marketing neophyte. You continue to make numerous mistakes.

You're making an analogy between apple pie and baseball bats.

Usually the name of a band is not intended to implicitly describe the type of music the band creates, except perhaps in a very abstract and creative way (e.g. Smashing Pumpkins might make me think of punk rock). The band's music creates the emotional attachment and devotion, thus branding the name.

The name of a company, product, or service usually must convey what it does or is for (at least some connected meaning), as this is very important for viral spread and recall during viral mentions.

Steemit sounds like a porn site.

That is really, really bad. Again I refer you to the females who are stating how important it is that the site not be connotated with scams and negative things, in order for them to promote the site virally to their communities such as the one lady with 500 members in her cause oriented group.

When you get to nitpicking the name of a brand (unless it's Shitty McShitFace), then you are really scraping the barrel of valid concerns.

Sorry man but you've been completely off in left field during most of the recent discussion. I can't even understand what you are writing most of time (lately) and thus not replying. I don't mean to be disrespectful and maybe I am a literary dunce in your opinion because your text lately reads to me like gibberish (not referring to the post I am replying to). I was avoiding saying anything, but I guess it's better I inform you.

Hell, McDonalds has a purple pile of poo named Grimace as part of their mascot team (would have loved sit in on that meeting, "Hey, Bob, it's a giant purple shit named Grimace--and we're selling food?"

Grimace is targeted to kids. It is cartoon stuff.

You need to remember to apply context.


Edit: even an abstract name such as Google, is derived or similar to ogle or goggle, which connects some meaning to searching or looking into. Even Apple had a meaning at the start. The logo was an apple with a BYTE in it.

Yeah, well you haven't figured out that reddit+steam=steemit (at least you figured the steam part, but it took me about 3 seconds after hearing the name to figure it out, but let's not let this get personal).

[iamnotback]

Yeah, well you haven't figured out that reddit+steam=steemit (at least you figured the steam part, but it took me about 3 seconds after hearing the name to figure it out, but let's not let this get personal).

Are you sure I "haven't"?

That was my first connotation also (which is why Steemit didn't originally offend me too much).

But perhaps you've forgotten the data I shared recently on BCT about Reddit's demographics that it is mostly young (white?) males:

Btw, I also wrote "(and males)" and many males thanked me in the comments. The point is I bet you are turning off the females and they have left (and for other reasons as well). Females want to congregate where other females are being chatty. Go to the posts of females and nearly all the comments are from males. Where are they building their community.

And Reddit doesn't have this extra male overhead of exchanges, trading, arbitrage, and the lack of the ability to organize communities (subreddits) centered around female interests with rankings in those communities controlled by those who vote there.

In addition, note Reddit's usership is only ~100 million.

So the point I am making is that the females and the older people might not have Reddit in their mind when they hear Steemit.

Before I came into the cryptocoin arena in 2013, I had vaguely heard of Reddit but never used it. It would not have been in my mind had I heard Steemit at that time. I had visited the site once and decided it looked like shit and never returned until I needed to use it when BCT banned me and also when Shen-noether only wanted to discuss over there.

[generalizethis]

Yeah, well you haven't figured out that reddit+steam=steemit (at least you figured the steam part, but it took me about 3 seconds after hearing the name to figure it out, but let's not let this get personal).

Are you sure I "haven't"?

That was my first connotation also (which is why Steemit didn't originally offend me too much).

But perhaps you've forgotten the data I shared recently on BCT about Reddit's demographics that it is mostly young (white?) males:

Btw, I also wrote "(and males)" and many males thanked me in the comments. The point is I bet you are turning off the females and they have left (and for other reasons as well). Females want to congregate where other females are being chatty. Go to the posts of females and nearly all the comments are from males. Where are they building their community.

And Reddit doesn't have this extra male overhead of exchanges, trading, arbitrage, and the lack of the ability to organize communities (subreddits) centered around female interests with rankings in those communities controlled by those who vote there.

In addition, note Reddit's usership is only ~100 million.

So the point I am making is that the females and the older people might not have Reddit in their mind when they hear Steemit.

Before I came into the cryptocoin arena in 2013, I had vaguely heard of Reddit but never used it. It would not have been in my mind had I heard Steemit at that time. I had visited the site once and decided it looked like shit and never returned until I needed to use it when BCT banned me and also when Shen-noether only wanted to discuss over there.

My point is you're nitpicking up the wrong tree, Polonius.

[iamnotback]

My point is you're nitpicking up the wrong tree, Polonius.

For readers who don't know it, Polonius in this context means "blowhard". So he is insulting me.

I have explained why the name can potentially not be nitpicking. It depends on how the masses perceive the importance of bad connotations such as porn. I realize porn is very pervasive now, so maybe people won't care. But when you are talking about inspiring people to come visit a site based on word of mouth or a link shared in social media, then connotations may or may not be important.

Thing is that viral can't be contained to only links and visuals. People still talk verbally. I told my Mom "Steemit" and she was was like "WTF?". My Mom is a very literary person, much more than myself. She pays attention to the meaning of words. Then again, she is 70, so maybe imagery of porn might disagree with her more than the younger crowd.

A better name could go a long way towards inspiring an ideological viral spread.

If you don't believe me or are 100% certain of your opinion, I'm sorry I don't have any more time to waste on rebuking you. Carry on with your opinion.

[iamnotback]

Here come the jealous haters to suck up all my time:

Your failure to see this is probably why your math is off. Youre figuring the dilution wrong because you don't really understand whats happening. Youre imagining that bloggers get paid in steem (they don't)

You had numerous errors upthread that were rebuked by @theoretical, so until you produce a cogent canonical reference for me to review, I am going to assume you are confused. Very many people have read my blog and upvoted it, include @dantheman, @complexring, @smooth. The middle guy is a PhD mathematician.

If the currency is healthy, there is no reason to believe that the marketcap would remain constant.

My point was not whether the market cap would go up, stay constant, or go down, but to not give incomplete explanations that make such assumptions as you did.

Isnt this coming frpm the guy, btw, who predicted a 1000% increase in the price of steem over 5 years.

I know the blog you are referring to and it does not predict an increase in price. Perhaps you meant to write increase in market capitalization. You keep making errors. Yes I did have some myopia in that old blog, but you didn't even get the accusation correct, lol.

Come on man, stop creating butthurt animosity and go write an eloquent, concise explanation for everyone. So then we can compare math notes. For now, you seem confused and/or the explanation in the white paper is incomplete and everyone is confused until we have a canonical specification.

Steem lacks a clear specification?

I don't know of a more cannonical source

Lol, we are supposed to invest in a technology that has no specification. Not good.

I figured out the way it works by looking at the numbers on steemd from day to day.

Oh that's reassuring. Thanks for being transparent though.

youre not far off but youre either double counting something or not counting it enough

I wish you could be specific.

the creation of additional vests to pay bloggers, etc devides the vesting fund

I'll repeat what I told you specifically is I think one of your errors. That is the number of SP (and thus VESTS at some multiple) created yearly is ~95% (correction: 93.875% since only blogging & curator rewards are half paid in SP) of the money supply (which includes VESTS, liquid STEEM, and SD), not some percentage of the VESTS which represent the SP. That is what makes ignoring VESTS work in my computation. The VESTS are merely a backend accounting detail. Note I have a question pending for @theoretical because I don't understand the backing of the SD.

The increase in money supply all goes to the vesting fund. your 90's should all be 100

I'm still waiting for a reply from @theoretical or @smooth to explain to me the backing on the SD, which I understand where the remaining ~100 - 93.875% goes. Until then, I can't comment on this point.

But I will say that if 100 of the VESTS are given to SP holders, then you've violated the white paper. So you can't be correct and even you admit that is not the case below...

So for example, these 5 steem in SP. In the yearly doubling you create 100 steem. 90 of those steem are for SP incentives, and they get added on to those 5.

So those 5 steem in SP would now be worth about 95 (out of a 200 steem money supply)

Which is exactly what my computation says also.

[iamnotback]

Lol, and so finally:

as opposed to investing in something with a specification that you made up because you think its equal to the real specification?

If you are going to continue to spew hatred, I am going to MUTE you. That comment is not productive and doesn't help build a community.

I didn't try to invent a specification. I based my math on the white paper. My math is accurate w.r.t. to the white paper. You are trying to claim that the white paper is incorrect. Why is it you are the only one complaining and not @theoretical, @smooth, @dantheman who've all upvoted? Why would the developers upvote if I was incorrect or at least why wouldn't they correct me?

It is not vests in the vesting fund, it is steem.

Well that is what I thought. My assumption from the white paper is that there is a way of accounting for liquid STEEM and SP separately, but they both have the same value in terms of each units portion of the money supply.

But it does make it confusing when the term VESTS and vesting fund seem to imply that VESTS go in the vesting fund. But afaics none of that minutia matters to the correct mathematical computations, as I showed in my math. You are afaics just confusing yourself.

its not what your chart says... thats about a 1000% increase, not 349 as you state.

Because you aren't accounting for the fact that SP holders at the start of the year are debased by the new SP holders that are paid rewards. Duh! You missed the entire big mathematical revelation in my blog which is probably why a PhD in math upvoted my blog!

Now go study my math and stop being a jerk.

The blogging and curation rewards alone are just 7.75%

I wrote in the blog, "how much debasement is accrued yearly to fund the various rewards paid by Steem, 77.5% of which is for blogging and curation rewards.".

That means of the 10% debasement of the money supply which is not just a forward split for SP holders, then 77.5% of the 10% (i.e. 7.75% of the total yearly increase in the money supply) is paid for blogging and curation rewards.

It is a bit annoying that you were too lazy to take the time to try to really comprehend my blog and instead immediately jumped into plastering the comments with your long-winded "walls of text" incorrect accusations.

If your attitude towards me had been more cordial from the get-go, I would have been more inspired to be amicable in my replies. As it is, I am trying to keep a smile on my face. Hope you too.

I appreciate peer review, but please take the time to comprehend really well. Whe you shoot off accusations without taking the time to comprehend a blog, you set yourself up to make mistakes and be the one wearing the asshat. I had a very good mood from writing this blog and receiving a lot of appreciation for it. And you rained on my good mood.

As well you have wasted some hours of my very scarce time.

[AlexGR]

Just say "It's 77% of the 10% = 7%" and you are done. Don't write entire paragraphs with your scarce time.

[iamnotback]

Just say "It's 77% of the 10% = 7%" and you are done. Don't write entire paragraphs with your scarce time.

I did before but he still didn't get it and replied again accusing me of being incorrect:

So 7.75% ÷ 10% = 0.775, i.e. 77.5%

[AlexGR]

Lol, and he continued? Ah well... what can I say.

[generalizethis]

My point is you're nitpicking up the wrong tree, Polonius.

For readers who don't know it, Polonius in this context means "blowhard". So he is insulting me.

I have explained why the name can potentially not be nitpicking. It depends on how the masses perceive the importance of bad connotations such as porn. I realize porn is very pervasive now, so maybe people won't care. But when you are talking about inspiring people to come visit a site based on word of mouth or a link shared in social media, then connotations may or may not be important.

Thing is that viral can't be contained to only links and visuals. People still talk verbally. I told my Mom "Steemit" and she was was like "WTF?". My Mom is a very literary person, much more than myself. She pays attention to the meaning of words. Then again, she is 70, so maybe imagery of porn might disagree with her more than the younger crowd.

A better name could go a long way towards inspiring an ideological viral spread.

If you don't believe me or are 100% certain of your opinion, I'm sorry I don't have any more time to waste on rebuking you. Carry on with your opinion.

Polonius is a complex character--so I'm not sure how you pin down a context....but, if I can do it, I'll do it within the confines of 14 lines, a nuanced rhythm, and with a few pics--no promises on how it turns out--gibberish or nein (but I promise ya neither theo now.)

[iamnotback]

Some more anecdotal feedback from that 20-something (or is it 30? looks younger) female attorney who was brought to Steem via her cryptonerd bf (or is husband?):

Polluting the blog of the environmental attorney? How clever! Who cares if others have a problem, though--I welcome it. There wasn't an option to reply above, so I am making here.

Your bitcointalk post makes a valid point about the name of the site. As someone who was somewhat familiar with the cryptocurrency world, I didn't think twice when signed up because anything coin-related tends to be offbeat. Based on the white paper, I think the shares themselves (steem, steem power, steem dollars) are aptly named, but "steemit" as a site name might not have been the best choice. Don't get me wrong, I get it (or at least I think I do), users are infusing their content with steem. But it does sound a bit gross now, doesn't it? My mind doesn't immediately jump to porn, but it doesn't conjure up any pleasant thoughts either.

Personally, I think the biggest turnoff is the ocean speak. People can probably get over the url, but the ever so popular whale, orca, dolphin, minnow, phytoplankton distinction is too much.

Personally, I think the biggest turnoff is the ocean speak.

Ah yes. I wouldn't have thought of that, but I understand the point about how our cryptospeculator nerdiness is creeping in and dominating the lingo of the site, which would be weird to those not coming from our niche meme (culture).

Since you seem to not be easily offended by my incessant spamming of your blog, lol, could I ask your opinion (guessimate) of how people outside our cryptospeculator realm will react if at all about the money supply of Steem being highly controlled by a group of a few guys? And therefore that they in effect control Steem and could even hypothetically be forced to use their overwhelming stake to vote for censoring content at the blockchain level (and that they put a license on Steem that nobody can fork it which is really strange for open source projects don't normally create such lockin). Also the alleged "scamminess" of basically resembling a Pink Sheet exploration mining company where they print all the shares for themselves and try to offload these on the n00bs who are sold an ideological "to the moon" wonder story. I realize you probably don't want to criticize those who have brought us this innovation (and actually I may even want to join Dan and Ned which is one reason I am asking), but do you think others from the outside will care if this later comes to light in the newsmedia and blogs?

I presume the masses will come here to be part of some movement to better the world, because if they just wanted to blog, there is already Medium (and Facebook is even testing in-app content and could have 100 million blogging p.d.q.). And if it is to earn money, they aren't going to earn a lot of money on Steem because the math makes it impossible. Steem was designed (as admitted in the white paper) to fool the users into miscalculating their average earning power on the site. So if users are going to stay here, it is because of something they can't get on Medium (which has 30 million daily users and Steem has ~5000). I mean perhaps we can probably expect most users to end up earn a few $ per month, which is just nothing.

I am trying to determine how much this matters if it all to the masses. Some argue they won't care at all. So then why will they come to Steemit if not for an ideological reason?

Eventually Steemit may have commerce based on the STEEM etoken, and that might be a future reason, but let's assume that won't be compelling for a year or more. So I am referring to the blogging site, not future improvements which aren't certain to pan out. Excuse me I am rushing so I am not really careful with my prose.

P.S. my father was head attorney of West Coast Divison of Exxon during the Valdez spill and then later Superfund related enviromental stuff that I don't really understand. I am doing the opposite of bragging, if you get my drift.

[iamnotback]

...but, if I can do it, I'll do it within the confines of 14 lines, a nuanced rhythm, and with a few pics--no promises on how it turns out--gibberish or nein (but I promise ya neither theo now.

I'll just admit I am a literary dunce and can't decipher your poetry.

[iamnotback]

Does the Steemit name convey this meaning:

Here's Jeff taking a STEAMIT all over himself on radio for 90 minutes yesterday:
https://www.freetalklive.com/podcast/2016-08-08

Jeff makes a very astute point at the 32 minute mark, where he reminds me that some allege that Facebook messes with their following and reach, so they build up their followers and then are at the mercy of the whims of Facebook.

Whereas, with a blockchain this will not be the case.

That is a major selling point to make to bloggers that forever they will be in control of their investment into their following.

Of course the caveat problem is Steem being DPoS (delegated-proof-of-stake) with 19 witnesses (delegates) and most of the stake controlled by a few guys. And Steem's license prevents forking, so if someone brings a legal action that forces Dan and Ned to censor the blockchain, then we the ecosystem are maybe fucked. So this ideal may not be strictly true for Steem.

[AlexGR]

Does the Steemit name convey this meaning

Have you considered that steemit cannot be compared, even on the name-basis, with any other platform, solely due to the difference in its economic model (paid content vs free content)?

Meaning that people's reaction could be ...."well, I don't care what it's called, as long as I get paid".

[iamnotback]

"well, I don't care what it's called, as long as I get paid"

I don't know why you guys are still stuck on the getting paid delusion.

Most people are not going to be making any significant money on Steem via the blogging rewards system.

Do the math. Rewards are 7.75% of market cap yearly with 50,000 signed up users, so 0.0775 × $200m ÷ (12 × 50000) = $26 monthly per user. But the rewards are distributed non-linearly roughly in a power-law distribution where the upper 20% get 85% of the rewards, thus 80% of the users will get 0.15 × 0.0775 × $200m ÷ (12 × 40000) = $5 monthly. If you argue that actual usership is 1/10th of that, then multiple those figures by 10, but realize the system is failing at adoption then (and the market cap is way too high for the number of actual users). Social networks are typically valued at around $100 per user, if we are looking at the stable case down the line. Even if we up that to say $1000 with expectation of acceleration and more ecommerce than typical social networks ad funded models, it is still only $77.5 per year per user without factoring in the power-law distribution effect.

We need another reason for them to like to be on Steem.

I think the strongest argument for the Steem name is, "I eSteem you" shortened to "I steem you" said by most users of the system to their favorite blog authors.

But who wants to say "I steem you"   It sounds pretty sleazy.

[MWD64]

I am starting to thing that IAMNOTBACK is a paid shill for Steem. He's a fairly new account, mainly active on two threads (both pro-STEEM), and he's defending Steem HARD on both.

Probably Larimer.

I also think a lot of people have him on ignore.

[bones261]

I am starting to thing that IAMNOTBACK is a paid shill for Steem. He's a fairly new account, mainly active on two threads (both pro-STEEM), and he's defending Steem HARD on both.

Probably Larimer.

I also think a lot of people have him on ignore.

LOL, iamnotback is formally known as anonymint. He goes way back. His name is Shelby and he is not a Larimer.