Ok. To an extent I can see what you're trying to state and I'm not trying to shoot you down here...... But a few points to take into consideration:
Steemit is a innovative hybrid of social media and opinion/contribution market. If you're first introduction to the platform was someone telling you you were going to get rich quick then you were lied to. Like on YouTube you're value and profit is gauged off of your followers/subscribers and like with fiat currency some have more influence or dosh to throw behind their vote no different than a contribution to a project or effort to a producer of a YouTube video who would be paid from advertisers after YouTube would take a cut.
Like in the real world, some have more influence than others on a market and this paradigm in any free market will never go away... unless for some reason the communist platform in economics or some other non-functioning model works. Unlikely to say the least. However, whatever you earn in your normal day to day career for whoever you work for is not going to give you more buying power than someone who makes more money than you. You can want the new car or the shiny new thing, or just the money in the bank... but you have to earn it and this brings me to my next point.
There are many people who have jumped on here in the past couple months with truly original content and received up votes in categories that have existed for a while. These are people who have toiled day and night at their projects and built their following slowly while engaging at every turn or have brought projects from one platform to Steemit and thus brought a following. Yes, I see the point you are attempting to make through the video about new comers catching whales attention at the start of Steemit, but like with all markets the first one in at a ground level tends to do well if the project does. The accusation of selling snake oil is one you that was made in a crypto publication in regards to Mr. Larimers approach to starting the EOS project. It's application to the Steemit project doesn't really apply and Steemit like Bitshares was built up and left to others to work on. Designers, developers, investors, all build projects up to a point of self sustainability and then leave them to grow and produce revenue only stepping in when their full on influence is required for problem solving or more investment of resources and effort. This tends to be the way things work in any market.
Steemit isn't Bitcoin and you're not going to get rich simply by endorsing it through creating an account or just chucking up content. As a social media platform on which people can engage in everything from building projects or creating communities it stands a strong chance. The up vote for cash is an incentive but not the only reason you should engage it. If it is then expect to do poorly and not enjoy the experience. FaceBook will always be there as will twitter to collect your data and human terrain based information to sell to others. The sale of your personal info from google to any other internet resource gives you zero in return. This holds a chance at least of some return. In the absence of return you get to socialize and engage with other like minded people. Like anything that's new it's not going to skyrocket overnight and turn you into Bill Gates for a poem, opinion, or picture of your burger at a restaurant. Like all markets it will reward industry and clever application. Food for thought.
"Like in the real world, some have more influence than others on a market and this paradigm in any free market will never go away..."
Well, isn't the whole idea of blockchain technology to create a medium of exchange (whether it be information in the present case or currency) wherein OUTSIZED influence (as in corporate Google or the US Federal Reserve) IS made to go away? How is handing Jeff Berwick 15k for his 3 paragraphs respectful to that idea? In blockchain terms, the presence of 'whales' seems like an ongoing 51% attack on the integrity of the chain. That may be 'the way the world works' but it seems to me that what people are hoping for in this new technology is a world that works a bit differently.
With things like Bitcoin and other crypto currencies of course. However, creating a market in which everyone gets the same rewards for different amounts of industry applied is another matter entirely. Jeff Berwick brought The Dollar Vigilante over to Steemit and now on this platform it is known as @dollarvigilante. It's still the same crypto news site he built and invested labor and time into, it's just on a different platform. Kinda the same as any established program brought over to a new network on television and then making money from the transition. It's not surprising to see him do well out of it in truth. The ideology behind decentralized currency is amazing, and so far is performing well. However, something being decentralized has very little to do with market demand which is what you encounter in a social media format on Steemit. If your content resonates and you build a following then you'll do well on the site. I hope like many others that the oligarchs and financial institutions that rape the world one different greed driven stroke at a time come crashing down someday. I genuinely hope crypto currency plays a role in this. Whether it will or not, I don't know. Just a hope. Hope and belief aside though, it is only logical and practical that any demand or endorsement of the bi-products of your time and labor be valued off of the market. Not what you think they should be valued at. And if off of market demand you gain more influence you would share that influence by endorsing/voting on others products or contributions in hopes that they do the same for others as they grow off of your endorsement. This allows whales to create whales and rewards those who invest the time to become whales. When something is centralized it is owned by an incredibly small number of people at the top who govern and enforce the control of that asset. Here the asset is shared on the basis of things like ideological resonation or created projects and products. It's a great idea and as close as you're going to get to a democratized social media platform in which monetary value is placed on dedication and time invested into it. Allowed to grow then it could hold a great deal of promise. It's still in beta as well so room for improvement is aplenty. In short the Steemit project is far from "dying on the vine". Berwick making any sum off of his alternative media outlet is more than fair just like me paying two bucks for a burger and three grand for a car is fair. One should be more expensive than the other because one took more labor, skill, and time to create. This concept has nothing to do with the idea of decentralization, it's basic economics. Now, if whales on the site had the ability to punish me for not handing over Steem dollars or a means to enforce an act of reprisal if I didn't hand over or pay a fee off of what I create and invest my time and labor into.... then that would be more akin to a centralized platform. But they can't and this platform isn't. They can vote me up though. In regards to a 51% attack on the chain? Nah. First, their would have to be a general consensus which wouldn't occur. Don't know if you've noticed but agreeing as a majority without forks and splits doesn't happen in the crypto world often. For Steemit such a move would be the equivalent of suicide and it wouldn't be tabled. That's more in the realm of imagination than anything that could logically/practically be executed. "Outsized" influence will never cease to exist in a free market mate. When that influence is centralized and heavily manipulated then we have a problem. Steemit doesn't pose those issues. It's not Bitcoin or Dash which act as monetary units and potential stores of wealth that beautifully say F*** OFF to the current banking system. It's a democratized platform in which votes reward participation and participation is rewarded with influence. Data isn't sold or taken without you're consent, all actions are open and visible on the block chain, and there is transparency throughout. Socialist/communist style concepts of equality don't fit into a free and open market. An absence of governments, banks, and totalitarian enforcement on the other hand only allow the market to grow and become more open in free. No centralization doesn't terminate competition and reward for labor and time invested. In fact it broadens the potential for it making the market ever more competitive and thus innovative. Like all evolution pressure begets growth.
m so old when I hear of Ponzi, I think of Fonzie, in my head...haha
you have some good points here boy, so I resteemed
Thanks.
So is google adsense a ponzi scheme?
you generate content.
host their ads.
you get money? hmm.
just kidding I'm just learning about steemit and all that, though have yet dug into the depths of how all this works.
Ok. To an extent I can see what you're trying to state and I'm not trying to shoot you down here...... But a few points to take into consideration:
Steemit is a innovative hybrid of social media and opinion/contribution market. If you're first introduction to the platform was someone telling you you were going to get rich quick then you were lied to. Like on YouTube you're value and profit is gauged off of your followers/subscribers and like with fiat currency some have more influence or dosh to throw behind their vote no different than a contribution to a project or effort to a producer of a YouTube video who would be paid from advertisers after YouTube would take a cut.
Like in the real world, some have more influence than others on a market and this paradigm in any free market will never go away... unless for some reason the communist platform in economics or some other non-functioning model works. Unlikely to say the least. However, whatever you earn in your normal day to day career for whoever you work for is not going to give you more buying power than someone who makes more money than you. You can want the new car or the shiny new thing, or just the money in the bank... but you have to earn it and this brings me to my next point.
There are many people who have jumped on here in the past couple months with truly original content and received up votes in categories that have existed for a while. These are people who have toiled day and night at their projects and built their following slowly while engaging at every turn or have brought projects from one platform to Steemit and thus brought a following. Yes, I see the point you are attempting to make through the video about new comers catching whales attention at the start of Steemit, but like with all markets the first one in at a ground level tends to do well if the project does. The accusation of selling snake oil is one you that was made in a crypto publication in regards to Mr. Larimers approach to starting the EOS project. It's application to the Steemit project doesn't really apply and Steemit like Bitshares was built up and left to others to work on. Designers, developers, investors, all build projects up to a point of self sustainability and then leave them to grow and produce revenue only stepping in when their full on influence is required for problem solving or more investment of resources and effort. This tends to be the way things work in any market.
Steemit isn't Bitcoin and you're not going to get rich simply by endorsing it through creating an account or just chucking up content. As a social media platform on which people can engage in everything from building projects or creating communities it stands a strong chance. The up vote for cash is an incentive but not the only reason you should engage it. If it is then expect to do poorly and not enjoy the experience. FaceBook will always be there as will twitter to collect your data and human terrain based information to sell to others. The sale of your personal info from google to any other internet resource gives you zero in return. This holds a chance at least of some return. In the absence of return you get to socialize and engage with other like minded people. Like anything that's new it's not going to skyrocket overnight and turn you into Bill Gates for a poem, opinion, or picture of your burger at a restaurant. Like all markets it will reward industry and clever application. Food for thought.
"Like in the real world, some have more influence than others on a market and this paradigm in any free market will never go away..."
Well, isn't the whole idea of blockchain technology to create a medium of exchange (whether it be information in the present case or currency) wherein OUTSIZED influence (as in corporate Google or the US Federal Reserve) IS made to go away? How is handing Jeff Berwick 15k for his 3 paragraphs respectful to that idea? In blockchain terms, the presence of 'whales' seems like an ongoing 51% attack on the integrity of the chain. That may be 'the way the world works' but it seems to me that what people are hoping for in this new technology is a world that works a bit differently.
With things like Bitcoin and other crypto currencies of course. However, creating a market in which everyone gets the same rewards for different amounts of industry applied is another matter entirely. Jeff Berwick brought The Dollar Vigilante over to Steemit and now on this platform it is known as @dollarvigilante. It's still the same crypto news site he built and invested labor and time into, it's just on a different platform. Kinda the same as any established program brought over to a new network on television and then making money from the transition. It's not surprising to see him do well out of it in truth. The ideology behind decentralized currency is amazing, and so far is performing well. However, something being decentralized has very little to do with market demand which is what you encounter in a social media format on Steemit. If your content resonates and you build a following then you'll do well on the site. I hope like many others that the oligarchs and financial institutions that rape the world one different greed driven stroke at a time come crashing down someday. I genuinely hope crypto currency plays a role in this. Whether it will or not, I don't know. Just a hope. Hope and belief aside though, it is only logical and practical that any demand or endorsement of the bi-products of your time and labor be valued off of the market. Not what you think they should be valued at. And if off of market demand you gain more influence you would share that influence by endorsing/voting on others products or contributions in hopes that they do the same for others as they grow off of your endorsement. This allows whales to create whales and rewards those who invest the time to become whales. When something is centralized it is owned by an incredibly small number of people at the top who govern and enforce the control of that asset. Here the asset is shared on the basis of things like ideological resonation or created projects and products. It's a great idea and as close as you're going to get to a democratized social media platform in which monetary value is placed on dedication and time invested into it. Allowed to grow then it could hold a great deal of promise. It's still in beta as well so room for improvement is aplenty. In short the Steemit project is far from "dying on the vine". Berwick making any sum off of his alternative media outlet is more than fair just like me paying two bucks for a burger and three grand for a car is fair. One should be more expensive than the other because one took more labor, skill, and time to create. This concept has nothing to do with the idea of decentralization, it's basic economics. Now, if whales on the site had the ability to punish me for not handing over Steem dollars or a means to enforce an act of reprisal if I didn't hand over or pay a fee off of what I create and invest my time and labor into.... then that would be more akin to a centralized platform. But they can't and this platform isn't. They can vote me up though. In regards to a 51% attack on the chain? Nah. First, their would have to be a general consensus which wouldn't occur. Don't know if you've noticed but agreeing as a majority without forks and splits doesn't happen in the crypto world often. For Steemit such a move would be the equivalent of suicide and it wouldn't be tabled. That's more in the realm of imagination than anything that could logically/practically be executed. "Outsized" influence will never cease to exist in a free market mate. When that influence is centralized and heavily manipulated then we have a problem. Steemit doesn't pose those issues. It's not Bitcoin or Dash which act as monetary units and potential stores of wealth that beautifully say F*** OFF to the current banking system. It's a democratized platform in which votes reward participation and participation is rewarded with influence. Data isn't sold or taken without you're consent, all actions are open and visible on the block chain, and there is transparency throughout. Socialist/communist style concepts of equality don't fit into a free and open market. An absence of governments, banks, and totalitarian enforcement on the other hand only allow the market to grow and become more open in free. No centralization doesn't terminate competition and reward for labor and time invested. In fact it broadens the potential for it making the market ever more competitive and thus innovative. Like all evolution pressure begets growth.