Steem pyramid scheme revealed

[iamnotback]

That is mostly inapplicable to my point, except that a lack of speculation liquidity can also remove a reason to invest for 1 year while it is only a low. Typically altcoins collapse to a long valley low for a year or so, and then after bottom fishing accumulation they get a pump. But since you can't cash out on a pump, this is entirely impossible for Steem. See edicts can't do just one thing. There is a confluence of negative effects. Clearly you now understand you are incorrect on this.

It is also entirely irrelevant if you read what I wrote which is that you would invest for >1-2 years if you believe the platform to actually have potential to succeed. Not to play a pump after a year of bottom fishing accumulation. As a candidate for a pump, it is a poor investment, but that doesn't necessarily make it a poor investment unconditionally, if it actually works (big if).

Of course it does. Because investment is always about probabilities (and multiple scenarios), not about absolutes. The original argument was whether the inflation has any negative impact on those who lockin. Yes it does, because it removes scenarios which would be opportunities to realize a gain.

Nobody invests with precise knowledge that they only want to cash out precisely with a 1 year weighted average. If you had that precision in investing, then you'd quickly own the entire world.

There is a negative impact on the lockin investor due to inflation. Your imagined orthogonality does not exist.

You can't cite anecdotes to prove aggregate effects. If you want a competing anecdote then refer to the Steemit blog where that multimillionaire anti-virus software personality John McAfee said he invests in blockchains but not Steemit because there isn't enough liquidity.

Well I can tell you from my personal experience as like the 10th largest stakeholder or so, that whenever I've powered down I've had NO problem selling the coins (tens of thousands) at close to the market price. The liquidity is perfectly sufficient. This has been true at every price level, before during and after the big July pump.

It is less relevant what you can do with money supply that you mined at fraction of the profit already extracted, than what someone with capital is willing to do to buy into STEEM because we are concerned with investment demand in our current discussion. McAfree was only not primarily referring to the liquidity available for him to cashout 1% a week, rather the fact that he can't cashout 30% in week because he is forced to lock it for a 1 year weighed average cashout.

So $30,000 weekly liquidity on a $300 million market cap is very low. Your statement of "10th" is an exaggeration of effect. You hold afaik at most roughly 1% of the money supply. So more accurately as the 100th percentile stakeholding, you've been able to cash out 1/10,000 of the money supply weekly (and afair you don't cash out every week), because the majority of the rest of the money is not cashing out. If everyone is cashing out weekly, including the Steemit account, then Steem would need 1% of the money supply weekly in liquidity.

I think some people might confuse this because the trading volume and standing orders are relatively small, but this ignores the fact that demand for liquidity is also low (since people can't be selling too many coins at one time). So it just balances out, with a smaller market volume.

It doesn't balance out. There are negative ramifications.

I think what McAfee didn't like is that he wouldn't be allowed to sell (similar to your point about not being able to exit on a pump), but it is hard to say. Possibly he just looked at the exchange volume saw a low number and dismissed it based on that.

I am nearly certain that is what he meant, because I did listen to what he said in the interview.

[1715160943]

1715160943

[1715160943]

1715160943

[iamnotback]

humanINTEL can id real content ... amplify that and you win ... stick with linear math

Linear math for the voting rewards can't prevent Sybils. We already covered this in great detail upthread.

Sorry the problem is rewards via voting. That can never be an objective system. Either you have Sybils or you have whale extraction. There is no other mathematical option.

Looks like those behave orthogonal... Only a very small point of correlation...

What behaves orthogonal?

[smooth]

McAfree was only not primarily referring to the liquidity available for him to cashout 1% a week, rather the fact that he can't cashout 30% in week because he is forced to lock it for a 1 year weighed average cashout.

Fair enough, but he can't cash out 30% of a private business or real estate or many other investments in a week either.

because the majority of the rest of the money is not cashing out. If everyone is cashing out weekly, including the Steemit account, then Steem would need 1% of the money supply weekly in liquidity.

I'm pretty sure it is. Just about everyone has been cashing out weekly (or close to it) including the Steemit account. I think the last number I saw was 35 out of the top 40 accounts or something. The Steemit account doesn't sell every single week but they do power down every single week and when they do sell they sell a lot (it seems often in negotiated deals). If anything the rate of cashouts is much higher now since nearly all devs and early miners are cashing out disproportionately (and own disproportionately approximately-100% of the coins, as you know).

BTW, my stake was closer to 2% than 1%, though it might be smaller now. You have to add a few accounts together.

I am nearly certain that is what he meant, because I did listen to what he said in the interview.

I heard the interview too, and I'm not sure that's what he meant (I just logically think that makes the most sense). It was a very fast comment without a lot of explanation.

I do agree that there are clearly coin speculators who want to play a pump. Steem won't be for them. I don't agree that precludes there being long term investors who are not looking to play a pump if the investment looked otherwise attractive (which to many at the moment, Steem does not).

[iamnotback]

McAfree was only not primarily referring to the liquidity available for him to cashout 1% a week, rather the fact that he can't cashout 30% in week because he is forced to lock it for a 1 year weighed average cashout.

Fair enough, but he can't cash out 30% of a private business or real estate or many other investments in a week either.

Apples and oranges. We diversify into speculations either in very small portions hoping for 100X gain homeruns, or for liquidity from other more conservative investments.

Long-term on altcoins is reasonable risk because we have the option to cashout on a skyrocketing pump. If ever there is an altcoin that rises steadily, then great but that has not been the norm.

In short, liquidity is one of the advantages a crypto-currency can offer. I am able to cashout out of Bitcoin into pesos (in the Philippines) much faster than I can from my dollar bank account in the USA, which is one reason I hold some BTC.

because the majority of the rest of the money is not cashing out. If everyone is cashing out weekly, including the Steemit account, then Steem would need 1% of the money supply weekly in liquidity.

I'm pretty sure it is. Just about everyone has been cashing out weekly (or close to it) including the Steemit account. I think the last number I saw was 35 out of the top 40 accounts or something. The Steemit account doesn't sell every single week but they do power down every single week and when they do sell they sell a lot (it seems often in negotiated deals). If anything the rate of cashouts is much higher now since nearly all devs and early miners are cashing out disproportionately (and own disproportionately approximately-100% of the coins, as you know).

Isn't the Steemit account roughly 40% of the money supply. Afair, they have not been cashing out 0.4% of the entire money supply every week (so roughly $1.2 million weekly when the market cap was $300m) unless it was hidden in the form of sales to private parties?

I do agree that there are clearly coin speculators who want to play a pump. Steem won't be for them. I don't agree that precludes there being long term investors who are not looking to play a pump if the investment looked otherwise attractive (which to many at the moment, Steem does not).

Our original argument was about if there is any negative impact of the inflation on those who lockin. I am talking about the aggregate effect on all those who might consider investing long-term. Clearly there is a negative effect, because for example there can't ever be pump, because there is no incentive to accumulate at rock bottom and then engineer a pump.

You are saying there might be a few brave fools who think they can invest long-term in an altcoin and then cash out slowly over a 1 year weighted average. That is incredibly bad odds. It would roughly need to become the next Bitcoin. As you know, typically a wise speculator sells at least enough on the pump to recover their investment (and perhaps a double or triple), then ride the rest.

[iamnotback]

BTW, my stake was closer to 2% than 1%, though it might be smaller now. You have to add a few accounts together.

Congrats. If you manage to get 2% of the altcoin that does really become a $10-100 billion market cap long-enough for you to cashout (or stable perpetual value), then I'll really be impressed (even if I have 5%).

[iamnotback]

Another crucial design flaw of Steem's blockchain IMO, is that an ecosystem that invests huge sums of money will not form around a blockchain that is controlled by 40 whales.

Although Delegated Proof-of-Stake is supposedly to be controlled by the votes of everyone, fact is the power-law distribution will prevent that from ever being the case. Thus the ecosystem investors always have to worry about competing with the 40 whales and their cronies.

The entire reason for a blockchain was to avoid that problem.

Thus until someone invents a blockchain that is impervious to centralization of control, then ecosystem investments are going be muted compared to what they could theoretically be.

I have a design for a blockchain (which in theory scales much better than Steem's DPOS) that keeps the control distributed with those who transact. And this is one of the reasons we can't make transaction fees 0, which afaics (IMO) is another egregious flaw in Steem's design.

IMO the hare doesn't win this race for producing the correct blockchain. The tortoise will methodically win, because it is about building an ecosystem, which doesn't happen overnight.

[topesis]

That said, there are other people working on different applications to work on the same blockchain, so maybe one or more of those will get it more right. That is my biggest hope for any kind of recovery at this point.

Other than payouts based on voting, what other compelling reason would drive adoption? What compelling features require a blockchain?

My answer is all about commerce. And that is all I will say about it for the moment.

The problem with Steem is that there is the distribution is fundamentally wrong, just to favour a selected few. The greediness of Steem developers caused this, there is no justification for centralizing the distribution of these tokens, the growth of the token too is really not based on solid fundamentals but a classic pump and dump chart. I only pity the gullible investors that their BTC have been trapped into the project

[AlexGR]

They could make the system much more attractive to investors by simply stopping printing so many coins. If there was a real purpose for doing so I would understand but it seems they are shooting themselves in the foot with the insane inflation.

I think the real revelation of what Dan created is that most people are clueless in maths. There is no insane inflation if you hold SP and Steem inflation doesn't affect you. Except perhaps indirectly, by the perception of those clueless enough to think that price direction matters, when all that matters is My_Holdings X Price.

If My_Holdings go up 3-4 times and price goes down 2-3 times, I'm in the green.

According to coinmarketcap.com, in July 9th, price was 0.0006 and marketcap was 30mn. Right now price is ~half, at 0.0003, and marketcap 38mn.

I want to say to Ned that the best way to make sure people are invested long term is if the design is sound and sustainable with the right incentives. Many others and I are wondering how the steem price will increase with such inflation.

But it is not necessary to increase. That's the thing. As I said in an earlier post, assuming price is stable, in a couple of years 1k USD worth of SP that I have right now, will be 2mn USD.

AlexGR you seem to think that as long as you get compensated for the price decline it's all good but you fail to recognize the importance of the price of steem. The price of steem is directly linked to the capacity of steemit to pay new bloggers, if the price keeps decreasing due to the inflation ( as we ve seen in the last month or two) then investors gets a signal that this platform has less and less money to pay for bloggers, so you will be sure they won't buy the currency.

I don't "think" that's the way it is. It is pure maths.

If someone said to you, do you want 10 steem worth 1000$ each, or do you want 100,000 STEEM worth 1$ each, would you take the total of 10k or the total of 100k? Does the price matter if the price is 100 times lower? No.

The reward pool is based not only on the individual price of the token but also in the numbers issued of it. Essentially the reward pool is based on the marketcap, not the price of Steem. The reward pool for authors could be 1000 STEEM x 10$ for a 10k USD per day total.... oooor, or it could be 100,000 STEEM per day at a price of 0.1$. It'd be the exact same thing.

As for the price decline, I think all the "sentiment" is because the price spiked and then it got down. However, over the long-run, Steem is going well.

What's of actual importance to investors is the closed-loop economy, in other words the viability of the system to generate revenue instead of being a perpetual drain in their pocket.

The 10% system that you propose is good, not in actual terms, but in things affecting people perception. But then there's the lack of incentive to hold SP. The system may need a redesign in that aspect.

[AlexGR]

The liquidity factor is also negligible in those terms, where you are willing to invest for years because you view the prospects are very good. (Take AlexGR for example, he seems reasonably positive about it longer term, and likely doesn't care that he has to be locked in for at last 1-2 years.)

I am positive because the idea is based on a solid concept. I do have asterisks though that bother me, and I've repeated them over time

- simplicity should be a goal (it's still too complicated, or where complexity is obfuscated, misunderstood)

- the closed loop economy should be fixed in some way. When I first said that, I hadn't really contemplated the possibility that advertisers might want to buy SP to create ad accounts with ad posts, so when I did, I realized the loop wasn't as closed as I originally thought. Advertisers buy SP and then upvote their content to visibility. Then I re-assessed that this model would be DOA due to flagging, so we are back to square 1.

- reward scaling (bloggers increase necessitates marketcap increase to keep rewards stable). This is a major issue that I can't see getting fixed without external revenues.

- ease-of-use in essential features. For example, you can't have a blogging platform and need to go to external editors to have a nice result in your posts. That's not acceptable. In general the small essential features that are needed in the platform are added at a very slow pace. I understand that price is something that is in the influence of the "markets" but there are things that can be fixed by working on them. Perhaps the team needs more devs.

[AlexGR]

The problem with Steem is that there is the distribution is fundamentally wrong, just to favour a selected few. The greediness of Steem developers caused this, there is no justification for centralizing the distribution of these tokens, the growth of the token too is really not based on solid fundamentals but a classic pump and dump chart. I only pity the gullible investors that their BTC have been trapped into the project

All coin distribution will eventually gravitate towards a centralized distribution because that's the reality of the economic substrate (real life wealth distribution that affects holdings in the stock market, real estate, precious metals, even cryptocurrencies).

If Steemit Inc magically converted all Steem Power to Steem and gave it away to the users, most users would say "oh free money, let me cash them out" and that distribution wouldn't hold for more than a few days as investor-whales pick up the amounts dumped from the minnows.

There is some level of hypocrisy from the lower players when they are so concerned with the distribution but at the same time they are also concerned about price. They aren't *really* interested in having a bigger slice, but they complain nonetheless. What they are more concerned is dumping (which is ok) hence the price complaints. If you are looking to buy, or even cost average, you don't complain. Or you do (to create sentiment and buy even cheaper ).

The small guy is usually the guy with financial needs that are waiting to be covered by crypto-gains. This means he cannot risk exposure to anything that can lose its value. The safe strategy for him is to sell. So most of the distribution arguments are invalid. Most altcoins have developed a centralized pattern in terms of holdings over time, whether it is litecoin, dogecoin, etc. Small guys sell, big guys buy. It doesn't matter how these coins were launched, but the top wallets typically end up owning >50% of the currency.

[iamnotback]

So free transactions is a flaw for a smartchian that has never been DDOS'd?

What you apparently don't understand from what I wrote, is that in order to put control into the hands of those who transact, then transaction fees can't be 0, otherwise the whales control the most free credits for transactions and so nothing would change from what we have now where the ecosystem is beholden to 40 whales and their cronies.

You actually have to make transaction fees cost a non-zero amount and you must burn them (otherwise whales will mine them to themselves), so that only those who are willing to expend money on transaction fees are in control of the blockchain (protocol, rewards, forks, etc).

You won't get world investment in a blockchain that is under the control of 40 whales who have a profit incentive. They could hold the world hostage to their profit motives. We are right back to the system we have now where the banksters hold us hostage with their profit incentives, e.g. Facebook. Facebook is popular because the banksters used their ability to print money out-of-thin-air to subsidize it because they want the control to track us all. We can't compete against top-down driven, because the banksters have far more top-down control than we will have. To grow an ecosystem that no one is in top-down control over, so that it can compete against the top-down morass of the world, then no group of whales must be able to control the blockchain. Now even if you distribute control to those who transact, the banksters can probably still control the minds of the masses with propaganda and thus remain in control, but at least society is in control and not any just some arbitrary grab bag of whales. Those who will invest in the ecosystem are more likely to trust that society to produce a stable, unbiased protocol and design decisions (or better yet, to change nothing in the protocol[1] because it is politically impossible to get society-at-large to agree on changes, e.g. Bitcoin vs. Classic or Trump vs. Clinton).

In large part also the ecosystem investment will depend on the reputation of the developers, and a developer which is trying to make a block chain that only society can control, is likely to be more trustworthy than one who likes to be in control and make Rube Goldberg bizarre designs that do really stupid things such as lockin investors for 1 year weighted average and create a Millennials furball groupthink of 40 whales.

So although we won't attain 100% nirvana on a blockchain, this is to some extent about which lead developer(s) is (are) a seriously qualified businessmen. For that, I think i am qualified. But as of right now, I am not qualified, because I have liver and intestinal disease and need to go to Singapore (in December!) to get expert diagnosis and treatment. So therefor, at the moment I am just more talk than sufficient action.

[1] Ideally the blockchain protocol would be cast in stone and all improvements would occur on top of the protocol functionality in the blockchain. And that is what I am shooting for (say within 1 - 2 years after launch). So putting the control into society-at-large's hands is a design choice to foster no forks ever! (except by proof-of-burn)

So the more money it costs me to send money the better it is for who?

WHy should I pay more than zero, and more importantly, why whould I pay whoever you think deserves to receive the tax on payment I must pay (that you decree I must pay Mr. King)?

U guys math much?

Seriously dude, if you think I am a simpleton, then you've got some serious handicap with interpretation of reality. You'd be wiser to go contemplate that over the past years, I have probably thought about every design angle in great mathematical details far beyond anything you've contemplated.

Transaction fees are never free, not even on Steem. You pay it on Steem by (the protocol) enabling the 40 whales to rape the system.

[iamnotback]

If My_Holdings go up 3-4 times and price goes down 2-3 times, I'm in the green.

According to coinmarketcap.com, in July 9th, price was 0.0006 and marketcap was 30mn. Right now price is ~half, at 0.0003, and marketcap 38mn.

Yet my locked-in-a-jail SP has declined in value from $6000 to $1000 even though I blogged to earn more SP in addition to that gained from the inflation. This is because some of the inflation is being distributed as rewards which I am not getting a proportional share of (although I may have received more than my proportional share from blogging, I didn't calculate it).

And moreover because the rewards are not attaining sticky adoption and there is very little speculation incentive due to the lockin, thus the market price is not moving up enough to offset the dilution of my share.

[iamnotback]

The problem with Steem is that there is the distribution is fundamentally wrong, just to favour a selected few. The greediness of Steem developers caused this, there is no justification for centralizing the distribution of these tokens, the growth of the token too is really not based on solid fundamentals but a classic pump and dump chart. I only pity the gullible investors that their BTC have been trapped into the project

All coin distribution will eventually gravitate towards a centralized distribution because that's the reality of the economic substrate (real life wealth distribution that affects holdings in the stock market, real estate, precious metals, even cryptocurrencies).

Agreed, but that doesn't mean control over the blockchain necessarily has to gravitate to centralized, yet for Steem and Bitcoin it does (and every blockchain designed thus far). So I hope you understand why I still think I (as a developer) have something very valuable to offer to the crypto-currency movement.

You need to unconflate the two in your analysis. That is one of my many epiphanies.

If Steemit Inc magically converted all Steem Power to Steem and gave it away to the users, most users would say "oh free money, let me cash them out"

Except if you locked it up.  

The small guy is usually the guy with financial needs that are waiting to be covered by crypto-gains.

That is not a mass market.

[AlexGR]

If My_Holdings go up 3-4 times and price goes down 2-3 times, I'm in the green.

According to coinmarketcap.com, in July 9th, price was 0.0006 and marketcap was 30mn. Right now price is ~half, at 0.0003, and marketcap 38mn.

Yet my locked-in-a-jail SP has declined in value from $6000 to $1000...

Eh, not from July 9th - you are talking somewhat later (say 10 days?) when price per STEEM and marketcap went 10x.

And moreover because the rewards are not attaining sticky adoption and there is very little speculation incentive due to the lockin, thus the market price is not moving up enough to offset the dilution of my share.

Your (investment) experience is such relative to the price spike. The experience of an investor that came prior to the spike (say early July) is different. Inflation has not been a problem for him, and he has a profit - despite the halving of the price.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean control over the blockchain necessarily has to gravitate to centralized, yet for Steem and Bitcoin it does (and every blockchain designed thus far). So I hope you understand why I still think I (as a developer) have something very valuable to offer to the crypto-currency movement.

You need to unconflate the two in your analysis. That is one of my many epiphanies.

Perhaps if I see a real life example I might be convinced.

If Steemit Inc magically converted all Steem Power to Steem and gave it away to the users, most users would say "oh free money, let me cash them out"

Except if you locked it up.  

Yeah, and the trolling that goes like "ohhh the whales are powering down, O M G, they are dumping millionz", would now be about the powerdown of the ex-minnows that now cash out the same SP

The "wealth distribution" most are complaining about is how to get free SP and cash them out. They don't care about shares. And even if you give them 1/104th to power it down per week, they'll take it.

[iamnotback]

What's of actual importance to investors is the closed-loop economy, in other words the viability of the system to generate revenue instead of being a perpetual drain in their pocket.

The 10% system that you propose is good, not in actual terms, but in things affecting people perception. But then there's the lack of incentive to hold SP. The system may need a redesign in that aspect.

The concept of perpetually paying rewards is entirely flawed. (Steem is fundamentally flawed in so many facets, and that is why I place 100-to-1 odds on its price ever rising again.)

The only point was onboarding and building a commerce driven ecosystem. The rewards are not needed after that, because a vibrant, profitable, decentralized commerce-driven ecosystem will trounce Facebook and everything else.

[iamnotback]

And moreover because the rewards are not attaining sticky adoption and there is very little speculation incentive due to the lockin, thus the market price is not moving up enough to offset the dilution of my share.

Your (investment) experience is such relative to the price spike. The experience of an investor that came prior to the spike (say early July) is different. Inflation has not been a problem for him, and he has a profit - despite the halving of the price.

It will be a problem for him as the price continues to decline while his SP remains locked up. Perhaps some early investors might be able to cashout before the price falls below their entry price, but that doesn't absolve my point.

Fundamentally there is no investment case. You are going to end up kicking yourself as all the others who invest-and-hold in SP.

If Steemit Inc magically converted all Steem Power to Steem and gave it away to the users, most users would say "oh free money, let me cash them out"

Except if you locked it up.  

Yeah, and the trolling that goes like "ohhh the whales are powering down, O M G, they are dumping millionz", would now be about the powerdown of the ex-minnows that now cash out the same SP

Nope because there would be multitudes of them. The jealousy is due the 40 whales who control the money supply and the rewards.

The "wealth distribution" most are complaining about is how to get free SP and cash them out. They don't care about shares. And even if you give them 1/104th to power it down per week, they'll take it.

Sorry you don't seem to understand the reason for the discontent.

People want to invest in something that is a level playing field, not a whale controlled "corruption".

[iamnotback]

Agreed, but that doesn't mean control over the blockchain necessarily has to gravitate to centralized, yet for Steem and Bitcoin it does (and every blockchain designed thus far). So I hope you understand why I still think I (as a developer) have something very valuable to offer to the crypto-currency movement.

You need to unconflate the two in your analysis. That is one of my many epiphanies.

Perhaps if I see a real life example I might be convinced.

Then take out 1 or 2 BTC and invest it in helping to fund me to Singapore to get cured. Get in on the ground floor instead of destroying your capital by invest-and-hold in a highly flawed design.

Speculation is about buying low and selling high. Not buying high on a flawed delusion and watching it decline perpetually.

[smooth]

I think the real revelation of what Dan created is that most people are clueless in maths.

This is not a revelation and it is indeed a flaw. If you only want to appeal to math-oriented investors who think things through in that manner, then you are okay, but you won't appeal to investors who look at a price chart, see a declining trend and stop there.

Is this a fatal flaw? I don't know. In competitive markets small differences can lead to winner-take-all outcomes. A similar design that doesn't repulse less-math-oriented investors (and is neutral for math-oriented-investors) might do better. The higher cost of capital that results from narrowing the investor market is a disadvantage (likewise for cutting out medium-term investors as iamnotback has stated many times).

Most altcoins have developed a centralized pattern in terms of holdings over time, whether it is litecoin, dogecoin, etc. Small guys sell, big guys buy. It doesn't matter how these coins were launched, but the top wallets typically end up owning >50% of the currency.

That's because these platforms are all complete failures in terms of adoption and use (doge maybe wasn't for a while, but it is now). So it becomes an empty shell that exists only for speculation purposes. As such it is worth more to a large holders who can manipulate the price than to small holders who can not (at least as long as foolish small investors are willing to keep funneling in outside money and losing it by being manipulated).

In a platform that were actually used for something, there would be degree of wealth concentration, as you say exists in everything, but it wouldn't parallel most useless altcoins.

And moreover because the rewards are not attaining sticky adoption and there is very little speculation incentive due to the lockin, thus the market price is not moving up enough to offset the dilution of my share.

There is currently no dilution of your share at all. It is being paid by liquid steem holders. SP is actually deflationary (or at least it was when I looked the other day; not a big chance since then).

If you earn via the blogging features, then you will gain share relative to both liquid steem holders and other SP holders, but if you don't you will lose relative to other active SP holder but gain relative to liquid steem holders, balancing out.

[iamnotback]

The liquidity factor is also negligible in those terms, where you are willing to invest for years because you view the prospects are very good. (Take AlexGR for example, he seems reasonably positive about it longer term, and likely doesn't care that he has to be locked in for at last 1-2 years.)

I am positive because the idea is based on a solid concept.

Disagree. The only thing solid was that enough speculators could be fooled by the pump enabling the whales to cash out several $millions.

We bystanders were able to get some crumbs. I got about $6500 out of it, so I am grateful because I would have been entirely depleted of funds by now otherwise. Steem funded me to fight on longer. So I am very grateful. But that doesn't mean I should lie about the reality I see. All of my blogging activity on Steem was sincere.

- reward scaling (bloggers increase necessitates marketcap increase to keep rewards stable). This is a major issue that I can't see getting fixed without external revenues.

Voting and perpetual rewards are 2 of the several fatal flaws.

Steem did point the way towards possible designs that could scale and be successful. It was a valid experiment that advanced our thinking.

[iamnotback]

And moreover because the rewards are not attaining sticky adoption and there is very little speculation incentive due to the lockin, thus the market price is not moving up enough to offset the dilution of my share.

There is currently no dilution of your share at all. It is being paid by liquid steem holders. SP is actually deflationary (or at least it was when I looked the other day; not a big chance since then).

You seem to entirely forget (fail to incorporate) the argument you and I had on the prior two pages of this thread.

I am diluted (speculation option removed is a dilution) because the speculators (liquid STEEM holders) are, thus they don't speculate (there isn't sufficient demand from them to hold to make the price rise).

You can't compartmentalize that which is not orthogonal. Nature routes around your imaginary Coasian barrier.

Apparently this concept is beyond your IQ, because I have by now stated this several times and you are apparently just are not getting it.

(It is ludicrous for you to presume I don't understand the math of the relative money supply dilution given I had very long technical discussion in the comments of my blogs about that, which I know you read)

Did I write "money supply dilution" above or "dilution" which is a general term? My share of all potential investment demand is diluted by the removal the speculation demand.

If you earn via the blogging features, then you will gain share relative to both liquid steem holders and other SP holders, but if you don't you will lose relative to other active SP holder but gain relative to liquid steem holders, balancing out.

There no such "balancing out" holistically. It is an illusion you and Dan's other minions have formed as a delusion in their fooled minds.