Steem - An Honest Look Inside

7개월 전

You might have already noticed it yourself: people on Steem are becoming more and more worried, frustrated and impatient. Bitcoin has nearly touched the 6k USD already, while STEEM achieved a new all-time-low of ~5500 Satoshis.

Now, I do believe that all these emotions I've just listed are completely normal; they are simply are part of human nature. And they are the opposite of what you might have felt when Steem broke the 7$ mark last year - when euphoria about Steem made us feel like we're in heaven and the 100$ mark was just around the corner.

But even if you weren't around at that time, I'm sure you were there when Steem was above 1$. And while ~33 cents is still higher than the previous low of ~20 cents this year, the satoshi valuation has dropped heavily.

Before you might think I want to create fear or anxiety, be assured: I'm simply truthfully highlighting what's already obvious and what I'm observing about my own emotions (fear, anxiety, frustration, inpatients), which - as I said before - are completely normal. However, it's in our hand how we deal with them.



Are we going to allow them to control us? Or are we in control, while still acknowledging their existence - and even seeing them as value-bringing information.

Look, Steem is not in perfect shape - some important milestones (SMTs & communities) are still not yet finished. However, Steem has never been more advanced and the ecosystem has never been more diversely used.

In my opinion, the main reason that Steem seemingly has been more "popular" in the past, was because due to it's freshness, the hype generated around it and, most importantly, the message people received about coming to Steem and earning real money - somewhat easy. Everyone loves free money, right? Well, I do. But I do think this is what essentially brought us into this position.

People came flocking to Steem (or Steemit.com essentially) with the expectation to earn money. And what they saw were these things: $18,000 USD for a poorly written post or $31,000 USD for an amateurish makeup tutorial.

I know that these prices were happening due to the very early Steem pump and the not yet big community around it; meaning a big pot for very few users to share - and of course, those high payouts were somewhat rare.

But regardless - do you believe the early growth has been organic and healthy? It was def. very smartly orchestrated (as pretty much everything from the very beginning of Steem), but organic growth it was not.

Instead, it gave people a somewhat inflated and entitled sense of what Steem is supposed to be: a cash-cow. Which is what we're still seeing somewhat today. Reducing author rewards to 50% and increasing curation rewards to 50%? No! I'm the author and I DESERVE it.

And what about those incentives for people to actually have Steempower in this system?


Before I get too deep into the rabbit hole, let me end it with this:

Steem has never been more technologically advanced than it's currently is. Could it be more and better? Of course, everything could be better. Even bitcoin. But we can only work with what we have; and especially with what we have been given.

And if we don't have the feeling that the current system is working out, then let's be bold and change it. We've been waiting and waiting with promises in our heads, for far too long. Opting for a new project is valid reasoning (as we've seen with EOS), but as a developer, let me tell you that fixing an already existing project is possible as well.

I really hope that the proposal system is going to be integrated into a production-ready steemd version soon, so we're able to see if it works and finally get some stuff done by giving community developers a more secure & stable system to rely on. (by the way, I still believe the inflation pool should be at least partially used)

With that said:

Keep your heads up!

Wolf


Do you believe that my work is valuable for Steem? Then please vote for me as witness.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
STEEMKR.COM IS SPONSORED BY
ADVERTISEMENT
Sort Order:  trending

Excellent post, most new websites are built with some early hype!

Yes, I think everyone from Stakeholders to end-users needs to reevaluate expectations and entitlement in a market that recently lost 90 percent when that happens everyone loses. End-Users, Witnesses, Stakeholders, and actual investors are hit in any market that takes a huge fall.

I agree there are good things coming and I also hope we can fund the Worker Proposal System sometimes referred to as the DAO with the inflation pool. I think that is what the inflation pool should be used for... Growth development and distribution.

Great post! Thanks for reaching out to the community! We need all the leadership we can get.

The biggest reasons we are dropping is the high inflation rate (relative to other projects) combined with the programmatic selling by steemit,inc. Until they stop selling so aggressively, we likely keep going down. It was fine when we had tons of demand, but those days are long gone. They need to fund operations with money from advertisements etc or steem and steemit are doomed.

·

I think inflation is the highest mistake. With SBD being the cause of it..

Posted using Partiko Android

·
·

Well, if sbd weren't being paid out, it would be steem. The inflation rate includes the SBD emissions. Though if all payouts were in SP i guess that may slow the selling slightly...

We need an overall reduction in inflation as well as steemit,inc selling. Them stopping selling might be enough to slow things down but I have no idea what their finances look like.

Ideally they fund everything from revenue from steemit.com... if at all possible.

·
·
·

When prices where high there were a lot of SBD printed. Then the prices went down really fast and all that SBD was printed in Steem causing the inflation to be much higher than the expected 9%.
I still think that SBD is the problem when prices come to a high level to a down level.

Posted using Partiko Android

I'm super bullish on Steem right now. Our up and down movements seem to come at opposite times of the larger market lately. If this keeps happening it will be really easy to make smart trades.


Curation should be eliminated entirely. Not because Authors deserve more, but because it's totally broken and easily gamed.

Curation makes absolutely no sense. It isn't large payouts that curate content. Every frontend of Steem has full power of what content gets displayed. Hooking curation into the consensus layer of the platform and forcing it on everyone is a huge mistake.


Regardless, I'm super bullish on Steem, and so will everyone else when the next crypto mania comes around and Bitcoin transactions spike up to $50 a pop. Trickle-down theory is a model that actually works in an open source economy.

·

Removing curation would break the whole system. If you want a system without curation, I would start out with a new project, instead of removing one of the main pillars of this one.

·
·

I don't see how curation brings anything to the table. Like the entire tipping model, it relies on altruism. No curator is going to upvote a post that's already been upvoted, without altruism. Why are we kicking back money to the biggest stake holders when the system relies on them giving away short-term gains?

Forced curation only makes sense in a blind bidding system where that critical payout information is hidden from the curators (impossible?). Otherwise they can just game the system, but why try to game a broken lottery when you can just self-upvote? So why have curation at all?

The real suggestion in my post about it is to make curation optional on a sliding scale. Apply optional curation to posts AND resteems (referral link) to be determined by the content creator. That way any percentage could be selected by the person who actually owns the content.

It's hard to take you seriously when you just give a vague generic answer saying "Nope, that would just break everything." It wouldn't. Both systems rely on stake holders giving money away, plain and simple.

Not much is going to change either way, so the smartest thing to do is nothing, because showing the outside world that Steem is willing to drastically reallocate inflation on the whim of a few dozen people is like the worst idea ever.

I do appreciate your time in hearing me out, even if we don't see eye to eye. Thanks.

·
·

Give people free downvotes and they will use them.

Current curation is bringing more pro than cons though

·
·
·

Give people free downvotes and they will use them.

True. Downvotes might have worked in the early days of Steem, while the community was small enough and filled with people having the same mindset/ideology, but it doesn't work anymore. Upvotes have a direct economic response - downvotes don't. So having downvotes costing the same as upvotes, but giving nothing in return, doesn't work.

·

I like that take a lot.

Indeed, I was so worried and busy finding arguments against the 50% curation rewards that I missed this fresh view: why is curation in the consensus layer at all ???

Posted using Partiko Android

·
·

Everyone can see that high payout doesn't mean better content.

It's a little harder to see that high payout doesn't even mean high visibility.

Steemit makes it a bit more obvious by pushing those "featured" posts down our throats in the feed. If you use Steemit.com, Steemit Inc is controlling everything you see.

·

people should be rewarded for creating content, not for bullying and chasing people away. Getting rid of curation would remove the incentive for downvoting, because it would no longer hurt the author. And people would continue creating content in stead of running away.

Steem has too many sellers and not many reasons to attract buyers. The biggest seller being steemit. This continues to drive down the price. As the price drops investors are harder to attract and it gets into a negative spiral.

We see this play out as steem is almost falling outside the top 60 on coinmarketcap.

·

That's partly because new crypto projects keep cropping up all the time. People tend to have short memories. We are still over 50% up from the December bottom of about 20 cents. Bitcoin has gone up by about the same percentage since then.

·
·

I agree new entrants is another factor. But it can't be the only reason as other projects have managed to hold onto their market positions better

·
·
·

Some have, some haven't. It's mostly random noise. The day-to-day or even month-to-month fluctuations in the market caps of crypto projects are almost entirely meaningless. There is little to no information in the price action. Investors, or rather speculators, are like flocks of birds or schools of fish, mindlessly and chaotically chasing after whatever profits they think they can get.

STEEM is at about 31 cents right now. Does that mean Steem is now almost 50% less valuable than it was about a month ago? Of course not. Don't pay attention to short term price fluctuations. It's just flies buzzing. There is no information in it.

·
·
·
·

I agree short term market gyrations are not a true indicator of value, but how long is long term? Steem has fallen from top 20 all the way down to number 60.

I am not saying this means steem should be abandoned and it's dead. But I think it's fair to ask the question of its below market performance.

·
·
·
·
·

I think the poor long-term market performance of STEEM relative to BTC is because Steemit Inc overpromised and underdelivered for a couple of long years. It was terrible.

Steem is a project of many contradictions. It's got the most users and the most traffic. But its public image is very poor owing to how it got started and how many of the early 2016'ers were totally spoiled by the massive rewards. When they rage quit as their rewards naturally plummeted after the totally unsustainable once-in-a-lifetime type of lucky strike of a start, these spoiled children went on to badmouth Steem everywhere in the cryptosphere.

I think we saw STEEM bottoming out last Christmas, and if it's any consolation, the last bottom was a higher low than the one prior to that which was 7 cents in March 2017. At last, we have MIRA. We already have Steem-Engine powered tokens but Steemit Inc will now get to work making SMTs a reality at last. With MIRA and SMTs in place, development will be more app centric and the troubled early stages of Steem will hopefully be a distant memory fading away.

·
·

We're only higher from a USD point-of-view, because BTC is at ~6000 USD, instead of ~3200 USD. When comparing Steem to BTC, we've lost a lot of value.

·
·
·

Yeah, it's true that BTC has gained relatively more since the December lows. However, it would've been a different story a month ago when STEEM was about 52 cents and BTC was about 5200 USD. There is very little useful information to short term price action.

·
·
·

Yes BUT perspective..

I share this with you because I am grateful for your contribution to the community. It is important.

Alts are showing high volume but near the lows of this cycle which is also its longest bear market period, 479 days. Looks like in past cycles it was also always darkest before the turn. What do you see?

I added the bitcoin halving periods to the chart above which only goes back to 2013 meaning only the 2016 halving is able to be included. The 2012 falls several months short. It took about six months after the 2016 halving for alts to start their bull run.

Alts should have their time right around that time period which is about 6 months after the halving. Steem should be appreciating in satoshi valuation around this time.

Makes sense. The price of Bitcoin brings many new people into the space. They think bitcoin is too expensive and start speculating on alts.

·

Steem has too many sellers and not many reasons to attract buyers.

Correct! And not enough reasons for people to keep their Steem on this platform, instead of selling it. It's all about incentives.

·
·

Exactly. We need more reasons for people to power up, perhaps creating more utility and benefits for holding SP. eg. Holding SP gives you airdrops, access to features/services on Steem, especially when SMTs and Communities come out, and maybe other perks.

·
·

We need RC delegation markets. That will enable new users to get the resources they need to utilize the site while SP holders can access the value of their resource.

Posted using Partiko Android

I look at work done as having merit. "Proof Of Work" of a non-encrypted format done by humans, not computers. So yeah, why not 25/75 75/25, or 100/0 cur/auth split?

What does work matter at all, why not just give all the Steem based on who has Steem Power?

If the authors/commenters don't "deserve" 75% for doing most of the work on the site, why not just give even more to those with the SP, which is the argument here for giving more to curating because "we want people to invest".

That seems like more of a "cash cow" model than rewarding authors/commenters who do the most work on the site with more than curators who do less work. Proof of work through proof of brain (for the most part..)

Why does anyone need to post anything, just distribute the token based on who has the token. That must be an investor dream, right? Just full passive income. WO0ot! But... what would the site be without those doing work to post and comment? What would STEEM be valued at then... I wonder...

Work done matters. Invest in any crypto and you don't get any returns for simply investing other that hoping the price goes up. The work of posting posts and comments is the way mining work is done on Steem. Curation is a part of that work done, but not nearly equal.

Voting/curating is too much work to get 25% potential rewards it seems. We need 50% to make the work of clicking a mouse or autbot voting worth it? Otherwise, that's why Steem doesn't have people buying it? We need to give more to easy or no work passive income! Again, why not distribute the token based on SP and see how "good" that is for Steem.

Also, I thought "bid bots" and selling votes was "good" for Steem. What happened to that? It was just a pipe dream people were selling to justify vote selling and make money doing nothing. Passive income for the win! Talk about a cash cow lol! I see 50/50 going the same route. Are we winning? Is Steem winning with bid bots and vote selling/buying? Seems that didn't work out as promised, now did it?

·

There are many, many more people active on Reddit than there ever were on Steem(it). And none of them are earning even a fraction of what people earn(ed) on Steem. Which means, Steem could even go as low as 99% curation and 1% authors and Steemians would still make more than redditors. Heck, even just a little bit is more than nothing.

So, I think the problem isn't about authors not earning enough on Steem, but rather people not having an incentive to buy Steem and staking it, instead of just selling what they've just earned by the generosity of people already staked in the system. I mean, just looking at your author reward history, it seems you were quite successful and sold a big chunk of it already. Good for you!

Now, I do think the visibility of content on Steemit is bad; ever since I've joined - which is why bid-bots were introduced initially, so people could influence their own visibility. But well, who knew that some humans just wanted to abuse it and put bid-bots into a bad spotlight.

·
·

On reddit no one earns on written content but nobody speculates on content written by others. I understand that for bots to offer a 75% curation would be a great deal: making money without doing anything is everyone's dream.

·
·
·

Exactly, earning by doing nothing, just having real money staked in a system, which takes 13 weeks to get out. ;)

·
·

"who knew"

Many warned about this when bid-bots were first introduced to the ecosystem and ever since there have been people vocal about the negative effect they're having on our community. We're now reaping that sow and sinking when many cryptos are climbing aggressively. Now the biggest reasons to hold SP is to draw wealth out of the system with it + to have something to delegate to other projects in exchange for tokens.

The most negative sign is that now would be good time to buy Steem, if you only look at the charts and technical analysis, but as a active Steem user, I'm still hesitant and afraid even, and I wish I wouldn't have to be...

·
·

Indeed, so bring curation rewards higher because more easy money for autovoting or vote selling, and those doing the real work to populate the site and chain with substance (or fluff in many cases) get less. Making an argument about reddit and saying authors could get 1%, or 0.01% of rewards, and they still would make more than reddit, is irrelevant as to why curators should get more and ignores the work being done. Reddit isn't a place for authors to begin with. It's an invalid argument and comparrison to make. Plus, it shows how little your value the work of authors, since 1% for authors is still more than redditors, as if that's just fine... lol.

I did take out a lot of STEEM. You know why? Because I was being flagged on nearly all my posts for months, with 75%-90%, sometimes 100% of rewards removed. That's why. Who would want to stay in a place where they are being treated like that? I didn't want to. Eventually the flagging stopped after 6 months of my leaving, so I came back. I also sold a bunch cheap when Dan left ($0.10), so I lost but others gained. I would have kept it all in Steem Power if the platform operated better or had ways to counter such abuses of power.

Anyone is allowed to sell their tokens. Anyone can powerdown. The shaming of powering down is really lame. You admonish those who sell because they aren't staking it. For someone to buy, soemone has to sell. You're only looking at trying to get STEEM to go up in value by creating scarcity from people not selling, by getting peope to power it up to get more curation rewards, and giving t hem more curation rewards relaative to authors who do the work of putting content on the site.

What's the point of having a token if selling it is looked on as a "bad" thing? LOL. It's meant to be used and sold. What's the point of money if it's all about hoarding it and not using it? That's how you cripple and sink a currency and an economy. You're plan for STEEM's economy sucks if you expect everyone to power it up and keep it there.

which is why bid-bots were introduced initially, so people could influence their own visibility. But well, who knew that some humans just wanted to abuse it and put bid-bots into a bad spotlight.

They've been used for the purpose of increasing rewards on a post since they began. It was about buying votes and buying rewards. I'll give you $5, you give me $5.50 (or whatever amount) back because you sell your vote instead of simply voting on content like things were done originally. That's the whole design of bid bots from the start. It was never started to promote visibility. That is only a side effect that occurs as a result of buying a lot of votes that few have as a primary reason to buy votes in the first place. Getting a $10-50 post from vote buying doen't get you anywhere significant in "visiblity". It's always been about buying votes to get more rewards. Keep telling yourself "bidbots are for visiblity, it helps the community and platform" if that comforts you, but bid bots have always been a blight on Steem and visiblity was never the reason they were created or used by people. It was always about getting more rewards by buying votes, not earnin them.

Few buy votes simply for visiblity (probably no one). Want to test that out? Allow a bidbot to take vote buying and then give the author no rewards for the upvote, like only for declined payout posts or something. Then see how many people you will get to buy votes. Not that many, because it's all about rewards first for the majority, and visibility is secondary, an after thought because of how the main front end site is constructed to show the Trending page by default which is based on the $ value of posts. Change that default sorting mechanism, and you change how "visibility" works. Would people stop using bidbots then? No. because the main reason has always been about getting rewards, not visibility.

There was already a place for peopel to pay to promote their posts, it's the Promoted section. If the main Steemit page was Promoted, I wonder if you would see less people use bidbots for the Trending page. Probably not that many, and things would go on the same way.

There ain't no such thing as free money :-)

Great post! It's all about the expectation management.

I feel lost with the steemit world since I just gotten myself into this (more seriously, lately) and according to old (2018) articles things are not getting better with this app so people are moving on but then there are also some who says it can get better if only the app will be improved (not sure if that is backend or frontend wise) and there is still hope since crypto can change value over time

idk im rambling lol but i think I'll stay here for a while

Posted using Partiko Android

The problem is, I believe, that the momentum to tip just doesn't seem to come for STEEM. Content creators are being censored and deplatformed and it's projects like Minds and Gab that I keep on hearing about as a solution.

Can we have someone promoting STEEM on Joe Rogan or another comparable show explaining where STEEM fits in as a solution?

·

Personally I feel like this is a very limited scope of what the Steem platform can actually do, but I think everyone can agree that we could use better marketing.

·
·

I certainly agree.

But given the zeitgeist is what it is, I'd say STEEM should have a voice in this debate.

I did like this message coming from @andrarchy. Let's have him have a talk with Rogan.

We can market the other features too, of course.

·

There is basically NO marketing to speak of ... as Wolf observed, among the reasons for the initial Steem pump in 2016 was the hype. In a competitive world you need to generate hype at a similar or higher level than other projects - that's the job of a marketing Dept. And this is not done competently enough on Steem

Posted using Partiko Android

·

Steem is still censorship resistant, however, the frontends are another topic. Minds and gab are also "just" websites and I honestly don't believe they will stay censorship-resistant forever. There usually always comes a time, where you have to take a stance (either based on ethics or laws), which in the eyes of the outside looks like censorship.

·
·

Exactly. Minds and Gab are centralized. When push comes to shove, they will easily be forced to censor. However, with MIRA making Steem nodes cheap to run, there is no way whatsoever for any authority to do anything about content on Steem.

To use price as a basis to reflect what is taking place is a poor idea. Prices might or might not be reflective of what is going on. In fact, after the announcement of MIRA, the price went down since them. If market action was reflective, the good news would trigger a run. It did not.

Of all the blockchains in front of Steem, how many have a business that is bringing in over $400K a month without being an exchange or gambling? Steemhunt has posted on their Reviewhunt site that they have commits on over $400K monthly from 42 businesses.

That is real world money from real world marketing budgets.

The early stages of technology is wrought with people looking the wrong way.

Curation is just for whales, 50/50 is painful for authors.

·

50/50 is very arbitrary number too

Why not go milder like 30/70 or 40/60? Why not go wilder like 60/40 or even 25/75?
In my opinion just let author dictate how much curation reward they are willing to give on each post. If an author believe higher curation will be beneficial they can set it to any number higher than 25/75 and vice versa if it's allowed.

·
·

Sure, it could also be 75% curation and 25% author. Authors could even set it themselves, even though it could become confusing for people to understand. I personally think 50/50 is a good number, because it's fairer than anything else.

·
·
·

Because human dont vote after more or less 15 min all day long.

·
·
·
·

I would argue the curation curve should not even start until after 24 hours after the initial post time. Give everyone a legit chance to read it or know that it was even published and have 2 curation windows, the 25hr-72hr window, then immediately start back up again at 72hr+ to 144hr then it stops at the start of day 7, that is for the curation window of the post. That way if you miss a vote on post you can still hit another sweet spot of curation later on to encourage possibly more voting on a really good post that may take 4-5 days to get to you.

·

That's why they advocate it.

·
·

I would argue that 50/50 is bad for everyone as it devalues the platform in the long run and shows that the people in charge of Steem are willing to make drastic changes to how inflation is distributed without community consensus.

·

People should want to be whales. Giving people an incentive to sell their stake and power-it down is what will bring downfall to this platform if not fixed accordingly.

·
·

Yep. I really think it should be up to each author to decide how much they want to give to curators. 50/50 could be the default in order to avoid confusion and it could be left to each front end to decide what kind of tools they want to make available for users to set their curation percentage.

·
·
·

I actually try to avoid voting my own posts usually because they curate less because I prefer to not front run my friends' votes on my own post, and I can curate much more voting on other posts that way giving someone a reason to not vote only their own posts all of the time.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Thank you @markkujantunen. At least the price of steem hasn't fallen to this level yet on the coinmarketcap rankings. And yes that is the most inventive ticker symbol in the history of any exchange, lol.

I believe that with the major updates coming out including MIRA, the tokens getting created on steem engine and so much more happening on Steemit now, we should start to see more growth soon.

That STEEM and SBD price rise was great at the time, as I could withdraw some to help pay for things in real life, but the communities are a massive part of Steemit and the value it brings, knowing your blogs get attention from people and you enjoy contributing to the platform as well.

I won't lie, earning money is a nice bonus for helping sustaining life in the future, possibly become a full time blogger. But I have met some great people in my city as well as made friends online.

I think the current curation/author ratio is alright. A 50/50 ratio will make more sense if there are more active users with dolphin-level vests. Changing it to 50/50 too early is going to shift the balance by too much; creating a "rich gets richer faster" situation, thereby widening the wealth gap.

What I personally hope to see is a strong, large and active "middle-class" group. A move to 50/50 seems to me that Steem is deviating from that course and I will probably be very disappointed by then.

On whether we had organic growth at the start, the answer is certainly a no. I dare to say more than 90% of early joiners were here for the money. I was here for the money too. However, I eventually grew to love this platform because of the potential I see. The interactions I get here also seem to be deeper and more meaningful. The dApps being built here are also getting better and better.

Overall, I am still optimistic of the future of Steem. As long as there are more development on the underlying technology and users' onboarding, I think we are still on the right track

·

I agree with you partially. It might result in more stake being redirected to stakeholders, but keep in mind that new users need to have an incentive to keep the stake they've just earned. The idea of distributing the currency, for the sake of distributing and in return hurting the stakeholders, who are not selling, is foolish.

Why should people keep their rewards in Steempower instead of selling them, if the rewards are not worth it?

Excellent reflections that I totally share, because I have also felt many of the sensations that you manifest. Even, I came to consider at some point if it is worthwhile to continue, because I still do not discover why some simple publications without much to show obtain excellent benefits and others, like some of mine, do not manage to exceed the dollar cent, when It has been hard for me to produce them. However, I continue in steemit because in this platform I have found, more than a way to earn a living, a way to express myself as a human being, read the expressions of other people and relate more to the world around me. So here I will continue with the hope that better times will come. Thanks for sharing this excellent topic.

·

ME gustó mucho tu comentario, refleja el sentir de muchos que llegan nuevos por las recompensas y descubren que hay otras cosas geniales que los hacen quedarse. Seguro te llegará el "momentum" si te sabes adaptar, es posible que tengas que re-plantear tu temática o estrategia de visualización, porqu eeso es algo que se debe hacer en todo momento. Te deseo muchos éxitos y cualquier cosa pegas un grito :D

·
·

jajaja seguro! No sería dificil, vivo en Venezuela!

The biggest reasons we are dropping is the high inflation rate.original_47073477.gif

I dont really feel those emotions because I rarely look outward into the crypto world. Having said that I think that BTC will rise to the point where people will start to throw money in there are again and then down it will come. I am consistent with steem and have never cashed any out. You were there when I started and have always been helpful. That is what steem so great in my opinion. It's the community. It's also the fact that you don't need to learn too much about crypto to participate and earn money. It is just going to take some marketing to get normal people to use the blockchain. Im really a big believer in @share2steem to achieve that goal. Getting 20 instagram influencers to hop on board would be enough to give us the hype we need.

·

I'm not sure about share2steem honestly, as I don't want Steem to become a platform people just spam their automatic posts from other platforms. Rather, the incentives on Steem should be that good, so people want to be here and engage on this platform.

·
·

I honestly don't see what's wrong with content from other platforms being crossposted on Steem. The more use Steem has the better. Engagement on some Steem app and reposting stuff from other platforms do not contradict each other in any ways. That's totally unnecessarily zero-sum thinking.

·
·
·

I'm not saying it's a bad thing per se, but Steem just being something where your posts are automatically cross-posted without any originality won't be beneficial for the future.

·
·
·
·

Who says Steem would ever be that?

Posted using Partiko iOS

·
·
·
·
·

It could easily become it when people see Steem as a simple medium of automatic reposting content.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Which people? I really think it escapes a lot of people, particularly those who have been around since 2016 how much Steem has already changed and will continue to change in terms of diversity of content. Steem is already not predominantly a blogging platform. The combined traffic on DrugWars, Nextcolony and Steem Monsters already exceed the combined traffic of all blogging apps.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

My argument was directed on your statement and the social part of Steem.

I honestly don't see what's wrong with content from other platforms being crossposted on Steem

·
·

I understand your feeling but that is how social media is shared and consumed these days. Long form blogging like Medium.com has been left in the dust. The quality posts of old are not a viable way forward at least if we want to be a social community. My concern about share2steem is that memebers don't have to participate on the blockchain to be rewarded but I feel like it is the cost of advertising that we need to bring new members into the fold. Once they are here awhile they'll want to know what the community is all about. The instagram influencer sphere is massive .

You're right, friend ... everyone will panic to see of steem developments that continue to decline. Unfortunately I haven't been on this platform when the price touched $ 7. But I'm still sure Steem will go up someday.

There's a fact that the average person can make more on Steem than anywhere else online, even with the current price. I keep posting when Steem was 6c. What we have over most cryptocurrencies is a community. I bet most of those higher i n the charts cannot claim to have tens of thousands of daily users and their prices are driven by hype rather than utility.

We do need some efforts to build the community further and for those with the power to do more to encourage good users who struggle to make anything. Of course you can make more on curation from the usual suspects, but does that help the platform? Personal gain can be community loss. At this stage we need to be a little selfless. I have missed out on many dollars by not self voting, but I don't really need that money.

·

At this stage we need to be a little selfless. I have missed out on many dollars by not self voting, but I don't really need that money.

I disagree. Selflessness is what brought us to this place. Expecting whales to upvote only others, while themselves having the risk associated with locking down their assets for 13 weeks in a volatile market such as crypto, this didn't work and won't work. Instead, we've attracted people just coming to Steem for free money and instead of using it to have some power in this system, selling it and thus creating sell-pressure.

·
·

I can appreciate that those who bought many thousands of Steem when it was $2 are desperate to make their money back. I am lucky to have earned most of mine. Steem is intended to be a long-term investment if you want to have influence here. I am supporting those who are willing to power up. Things like vote buying just centralise the power even more whilst making posts trend that would not get there with 'proof of brain'.

It's an imperfect system and we need to find ways to make it work. It just is not growing and may be losing users overall. Those with the power are the ones who can change that.

Just my opinion :)

EDIT Delete: after having a bitch about something, it just doesn't feel right to leave it here forever:)

·

You can't delete it from the blockchain, I'm only not able to read it on Steemit (not going to read it directly from the blockchain, though :) )

·
·

lol, i read an article about flat curation ?! - anything where i don't feel fked or altruism as edicted said. using bots to auto curate to get the best roi is dumb. yes let everyone use bots but don't see why they should have an advantage. i like this place didn't come here to spend my reading time messing around with my auto upvotes - been there done that, moved onto vote swapping - feel more involved haha fk!

oh and i made above 100% on your post auto voting yeah ha. maybe i will keep you on auto. lol
10.9 min 0.056 SBD 0.015 SBD 0.219 SP 128.2 %

Nice heaping helping of suck it up buttercup. Investing is not for the weak of heart, but those that buy good companies when others are selling will either be very rich or lose their investment. I think this separates the rich from those that aren’t rich, educated risks and staying power. 👍

Posted using Partiko iOS

Just got some more yesterday....ride or die ..I guess..

I think there needs to be a more simple 2 factor authentication instead of so many keys... user adoption for crypto is coming along well, but steem recently became more complicated with multi purpose keys etc...
Steem is fantastic but there are some hurdles for new users...

Congratulations @therealwolf!
Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following category:

  • Pending payout - Ranked 5 with $ 107,96

Awesome thoughts. I just wrote a much more rambling and meandering post about some of those very things today. It blows me away how little new content I am seeing on the platform these days despite the huge amount of development that has been going into it. The value of Steem is much more real today than when I joined Jan of 2018 even though my account doesn't necessarily reflect that value. It is encouraging to know that others with much more stake in the system are going through the same emotions a lot of us midrange account holders are.

Mint post @therealwolf and i enjoyed reading everyones insights and feeling that passion or not for Steemit and iam most solidly with Steemit for the long run, my only gripe is not been able to quickly move investments in and out!

It can only go up at this point, it's at such a low point.

Posted using Partiko Android

Hi, @therealwolf!

You just got a 0.3% upvote from SteemPlus!
To get higher upvotes, earn more SteemPlus Points (SPP). On your Steemit wallet, check your SPP balance and click on "How to earn SPP?" to find out all the ways to earn.
If you're not using SteemPlus yet, please check our last posts in here to see the many ways in which SteemPlus can improve your Steem experience on Steemit and Busy.

damn bro, I think I hit your base in drugs once. my bad. but I like the assessment.

I can earn more crypto here on Steemit than anyplace else. Going to just keep Powering everything up.

Hello, this is a nice post, It would be nice to see more people reading this post, I’m a translator and I can translate this entire post into Spanish, here I leave you all the details of my services, click on this link if you are interest https://steemit.com/english/@orbital753/i-can-translate-your-post-from-english-to-spanish

I love the sentiment I agree with you on pretty much the whole post. I love the valuation (because I want more at this price--as much as I can get that isn't nailed down actually, lol). The bringing of value of what steemit can be is really just now starting to happen in my opinion with all the new sick games, dapps, all of this stuff is unbelievable. I feel the downvote needs to cost twice the voting of power of what an upvote of the same percentage of one's voting power costs. If people are being so 'noble' with their downvote they should have no problem spending that much more rather than finding things they do want and reward those. I also feel there should be a mandate in voting up or down that account needs an existing post, or comment less than say 5-6 days old so that there could be reprisal for flippant downvoting behavior so that the 'human user' with their offended sensibilities of high brow content like theirs can show us all how it's done.

You are very right the hype wave is what brought a lot of people here. Like Richard Heart says (to paraphrase) so often... "Nobody gives an expletive about this, or nobody gives a flying expletive about that, they care about if the price is expletive -ing going up or down and how much." I think place is a dynamite keg waiting to go off when/if all the new developments on the platform can ever be brought to the public. And at the time of this comment we now at right about 5 satoshis.

I also think with the opening up of ideas and listening more to the public that can only help in getting a better feel to what people are feeling, expecting, and wanting day to day and longer term. I have wrote this same post a few times (minus the high level of polish and higher end usage of the proper vocabulary for all things blockchain, of course) and I think that this is just the beginning of the history change in economics that is crypto and hopefully steemit does not get lost in the shuffle because it certainly does not deserve to in my opinion.

Awesome read and important read. These days it hard to find an important post in trending as everyone can pump their post to trending by buying votes. I came to know some important things from your post. Seems crazy about the reward during the beginning of steemit.

Yeah, you are very right that Steemit Hype was the reason behind the pumping price in 2018. I don't when the price of steem will be back at that point.

Lol. To swim or not to swim that is the question!

I've been here on and off since Jan 2017 and the way the steem ecosystem has changed just gives me nostalgia about the time when people were passionate about this platform. When people used to actually vote others.
The stuff people did to make steem better.
Downvoting whale's upvotes, 100% power up challenge and what not.
But everything changed when the fire nation..i mean the bots arrived. And it has only been going downhill now.
I still believe in steem and even if I don't post very often i regularly browse what others have to say here and I have been buying when it was 8k satoshis recently at a big loss.
I just hope the dev team and the community does what this platform needs.

I still don't understand how steemit works. I have following questions in mind:
a. how does my upvote generate money for me? Does it depend on how much steempower i have? What is the calculaton like?
b. When I reply to a post, does it generate money for me? How?
c. When I write a new post, I may get nothing? or will i get some money for posting articles even when no one upvotes ?
d. Does keeping steempower generate income and is this called staking?
How much will i get ?
If you have any link to basic steemit articles please share with me. Thanks

Not a fan for a while but yet I continue to post and go to Steemfest. Buying a little here is a pretty safe bet.

Posted using Partiko Android