|
iamnotback
|
 |
November 26, 2016, 11:50:49 PM |
|
Instead of formal advertising, all advertisers need to do is buy some steempower and then automatically upvote anything that has their chosen keywords in it. Writers will automatically start including said keywords, so it is win-win, especially as it is a more natural form of advertising.
The problem is that the advertising industry is stuck in the old days where they advertise like they do in newspapers or on the search engines. It will take them awhile before they wrap their heads around a new model.
The new model will be that your users do your advertising. You can't buy this with money. You buy this by providing something to your users that they need to talk about with others. Welcome the Knowledge Age that I (@AnonyMint) was writing about and predicting since 2013: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.0 |
|
|
|
|
AlexGR
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
|
|
November 28, 2016, 10:42:45 PM |
|
it is interesting, why steemit dont use advertising selling on steemit platform? it can interested a lot of investors. Also it will help to support sbd withou steem dump.
Ad revenue would be so little to sustain Steem or SBD price that it's not worth the inconvenience for the users. In my opinion the best solution is to have an ad-free experience for logged-in users, but display ads to non-logged-in users. I'm not talking anything big though - discrete, small ads that simply bring some extra revenue. 1) It creates an incentive to sign up 2) It breaks the closed loop economy 3) It keeps the promise of no ads for its users 4) It monetizes the content already existing in the blockchain, allowing new possibilities like residual income for older content |
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
November 29, 2016, 04:54:15 AM |
|
But as you have it now you are basically throwing money to keep a endless hyperinflation scheme running.
The 'endless' hyperinflation scheme ends in one week. |
|
|
|
|
|
TonySon
|
|
November 29, 2016, 12:57:16 PM
Last edit: November 30, 2016, 12:15:29 PM by TonySon |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
profitgenerator212
|
|
November 29, 2016, 05:14:52 PM |
|
it is interesting, why steemit dont use advertising selling on steemit platform? it can interested a lot of investors. Also it will help to support sbd withou steem dump.
Ad revenue would be so little to sustain Steem or SBD price that it's not worth the inconvenience for the users. Also these users are basically the owners of the platform and content creatores, so I'm not sure who will benefit for showing ads there or what type. The real problem with Steemit is that their content quality is pathetic compared to Facebook, Reddit, Medium, etc. If the content was superior and it had actual demand from the mainstream like the previously mentioned I could see how "blogging is the new mining" could work and justify the crazy inflation model. But as you have it now you are basically throwing money to keep a endless hyperinflation scheme running. Steem replacing Youtube has never worked for me. Check a 3 months chart. Facts do speak for themselves. Steem is more like a competitor for Reddit and Medium. We will see about the others later when it grows a little bit more. |
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
November 29, 2016, 09:11:26 PM |
|
But as you have it now you are basically throwing money to keep a endless hyperinflation scheme running.
The 'endless' hyperinflation scheme ends in one week. awwww then STEEM will just be "bitcoin plus blogging" = "boooorrrrrrrrriiiiinnnnngggggg" The hyperinflation scheme never added any real value to begin with. Everything else will work much the same as before. Inflate insanely and then pay insane interest to offset nearly all of the inflation? Sorry, that was kind of pointless. Removing it is either neutral or adds value. (Although I was never as strongly against it as were some others, I also never saw much point to it.) |
|
|
|
|
|
damashup
|
|
November 30, 2016, 09:08:54 AM |
|
Sounds great... paying gas to post when I can immutably post to the Steem blockchain for free. Right now I'll settle for just getting my Ethereum wallet to sync... |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
December 01, 2016, 05:17:27 PM |
|
Steem's genius is that when you up vote, you arn't transferring from your own wallet, you are allocating newly minted steem from the next 24 hours to whoever you have upvoted.
That is Steem's major flaw, not its genius. As I will soon teach by example... Don't forget that I explained mathematically that awarding minted tokens via voting can't be distributed to anyone but who the whales choose, i.e. you can never rid yourself of the whale oppression in that voting system: https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/blog-rewards-can-t-be-widely-distributed |
|
|
|
|
|
profitgenerator212
|
|
December 03, 2016, 05:21:06 PM |
|
Sounds great... paying gas to post when I can immutably post to the Steem blockchain for free.
Right now I'll settle for just getting my Ethereum wallet to sync...
Plus ETH is not immutable as seen what happened to the DAO. Steemit didnt had any issues like that. |
|
|
|
|
CryptoRambler
|
|
December 03, 2016, 05:36:31 PM |
|
But as you have it now you are basically throwing money to keep a endless hyperinflation scheme running.
The 'endless' hyperinflation scheme ends in one week. @smooth, what will the new inflation scheme be with regards to steem/sbd/sp - and how will it compare to the current steem x10/reverse split every 3yrs, sbd 10%, sp 90% annual ROI? |
|
|
|
|
Zer0Sum
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1588
Merit: 1000
|
|
December 03, 2016, 06:11:32 PM |
|
Medium is not going survive either. Blogging content is not sufficiently monetizable to sustain the model Steem has.
All the knob twiddling at Steemit completely misses several fatal flaws in their "Business Model". (1) Zero revenue... replaced by paying out a massive premine. (2) No professional writers... even aspiring semi-pros are leaving. (3) A hardcore caste system that dominates EVERY aspect of the platform. I'm amazed and disappointed that none of the above has been addressed... It's like a college project run by people with no actual experience in media... Who are blissfully unaware of anything outside their cocoon. The above cannot be some kind of big mistake... at some point you have to say "scam". |
|
|
|
|
|
CryptoRambler
|
|
December 03, 2016, 07:27:06 PM |
|
Medium is not going survive either. Blogging content is not sufficiently monetizable to sustain the model Steem has.
All the knob twiddling at Steemit completely misses several fatal flaws in their "Business Model". (1) Zero revenue... replaced by paying out a massive premine. (2) No professional writers... even aspiring semi-pros are leaving. (3) A hardcore caste system that dominates EVERY aspect of the platform. I'm amazed and disappointed that none of the above has been addressed... It's like a college project run by people with no actual experience in media... Who are blissfully unaware of anything outside their cocoon. The above cannot be some kind of big mistake... at some point you have to say "scam". The root problem is that the consensus voting mechanism is flawed. The proper voting system would not take into account higher status based on quantity of Fiat converted to steem to sp. Fix this and you fix all of the problems mentioned. Seems straightforward... instead of electoral college style voting, have a popular vote. SP should only be exchanged fore bonus, not cash. Also, focus on eliminating sock puppets using an algorithm, |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
December 04, 2016, 02:22:49 AM
Last edit: December 05, 2016, 06:23:48 AM by iamnotback |
|
The root problem is that the consensus voting mechanism is flawed. The proper voting system would not take into account higher status based on quantity of Fiat converted to steem to sp.
For the umpteenth time, I will repeat: No project can make the voting fair while also avoiding Sybil attacks: https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/blog-rewards-can-t-be-widely-distributedTechnically impossible. Stick a fork it it. Voting from the collective money supply is dead and can't be fixed. This is why every Steem clone such as Ark is DOA. |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
December 05, 2016, 06:23:12 AM |
|
Correct yet again on another failed social networking experiment named Synereo: |
|
|
|
|
r0ach
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
December 05, 2016, 08:43:43 AM
Last edit: December 05, 2016, 09:03:04 AM by r0ach |
|
Correct yet again on another failed social networking experiment named Synereo: A pyramid scheme run out of Tel Aviv. Who could have seen such a thing coming? |
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
December 05, 2016, 05:44:39 PM |
|
But as you have it now you are basically throwing money to keep a endless hyperinflation scheme running.
The 'endless' hyperinflation scheme ends in one week. @smooth, what will the new inflation scheme be with regards to steem/sbd/sp - and how will it compare to the current steem x10/reverse split every 3yrs, sbd 10%, sp 90% annual ROI? Total inflation of 9.5% per year (it rises to about 10% after factoring in compounding). Of which: . 15% goes to SP (will probably be around a 1%/y interest rate on SP, but depends what fraction of the money supply is powered up) . 10% goes to witnesses/miners . 75% goes to content/curators The total inflation rate will decline by about 0.5% per year until it reaches 1% per year in 20 years. Also: . Power down time changed from 2 years to 13 weeks. |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
December 05, 2016, 07:35:58 PM |
|
Errors: 0:40 - " witness are under control of the shareholders". Incorrect. They can do whatever they want until they are replaced by an election. 0:45 - " actually more secure than Bitcoin". Incorrect. I explain why in my white paper. 0:48 - " proof-of-work is ... burn most money is most secure ... proof-of-stake ... is also a scarce resource". Incorrect. 1:40 - " all systems are vulnerable to 51% attack ... no such thing as avoiding 51% attack". Incorrect. PoS is economically vulnerable to double-spends, Bitcoin is not. I explain this in my white paper. Correct that all systems have some form of 51% attack, but PoS has additional 51% attack vectors. 2:10 - " where we get the advantage over proof-of-work is that the cost of acquiring the 51% is much higher in proof-of-stake". Incorrect. Much easier to borrow or rent 51% stake than to rent 51% of mining farms. The mining farms have too much at stake. The shareholders have nearly nothing-at-stake because of their shares being an undersupplied public good. Worse yet, it may be more profitable for the whales to double-spend and short, than to sell their stake straight up. 2:20 - " because DPoS uses deterministic manner of producing blocks, we don't have to rely on random chance". Incorrect. He fundamentally does not understand resiliency and liveness. I explain this in detail in my white paper. Thus he doesn't understand why Graphene will never scale up to the world. Dunning-Kruger-esque. 3:30 - " get non-linear growth in the ability to achieve things when you concentrate capital". Incorrect. He is touting the concentration of nodes to 110 witnesses as being some advantage, because he never figured out how to otherwise solve the propagation scaling issue that plagues an unbounded number of nodes. But it doesn't follow that a concentration, bounded, and permissioned, provides resiliency and liveness. He is conflating. I rebutted the Bitshares guy who responded to my above comments: https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos/issues/43#issuecomment-264952505 |
|
|
|
|
|
brekyrself
|
|
December 05, 2016, 08:58:09 PM |
|
Errors: 0:40 - " witness are under control of the shareholders". Incorrect. They can do whatever they want until they are replaced by an election. 0:45 - " actually more secure than Bitcoin". Incorrect. I explain why in my white paper. 0:48 - " proof-of-work is ... burn most money is most secure ... proof-of-stake ... is also a scarce resource". Incorrect. 1:40 - " all systems are vulnerable to 51% attack ... no such thing as avoiding 51% attack". Incorrect. PoS is economically vulnerable to double-spends, Bitcoin is not. I explain this in my white paper. Correct that all systems have some form of 51% attack, but PoS has additional 51% attack vectors. 2:10 - " where we get the advantage over proof-of-work is that the cost of acquiring the 51% is much higher in proof-of-stake". Incorrect. Much easier to borrow or rent 51% stake than to rent 51% of mining farms. The mining farms have too much at stake. The shareholders have nearly nothing-at-stake because of their shares being an undersupplied public good. Worse yet, it may be more profitable for the whales to double-spend and short, than to sell their stake straight up. 2:20 - " because DPoS uses deterministic manner of producing blocks, we don't have to rely on random chance". Incorrect. He fundamentally does not understand resiliency and liveness. I explain this in detail in my white paper. Thus he doesn't understand why Graphene will never scale up to the world. Dunning-Kruger-esque. 3:30 - " get non-linear growth in the ability to achieve things when you concentrate capital". Incorrect. He is touting the concentration of nodes to 110 witnesses as being some advantage, because he never figured out how to otherwise solve the propagation scaling issue that plagues an unbounded number of nodes. But it doesn't follow that a concentration, bounded, and permissioned, provides resiliency and liveness. He is conflating. I rebutted the Bitshares guy who responded to my above comments: https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos/issues/43#issuecomment-264952505Thanks for the link and interesting discussion. Wish there was a way for you to expedite your idea's by working together with Steem/BitShares etc... to launch your project. Hell, you might even be able to get a worker approved (paid by bts blockchain) for improving upon the chain with your creative ideas. |
|
|
|
|
|
zef316
|
|
December 05, 2016, 09:08:56 PM |
|
Once i have created account there on site but i was unaware about how to use the same and how and where we can trade with this so i leave the working here and quit, now again i have seen this and wish to know more about the same so i can start working again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CryptoRambler
|
|
December 06, 2016, 07:33:38 AM |
|
Total inflation of 9.5% per year (it rises to about 10% after factoring in compounding).
Of which:
. 15% goes to SP (will probably be around a 1%/y interest rate on SP, but depends what fraction of the money supply is powered up)
. 10% goes to witnesses/miners
. 75% goes to content/curators
The total inflation rate will decline by about 0.5% per year until it reaches 1% per year in 20 years.
Also:
. Power down time changed from 2 years to 13 weeks.
Thank you for the update... these formulas sound much better, especially the power down period... interested to see how the consensus voting mechanism works. That is key  |
|
|
|
|
|
