Setting @likwid as beneficiary let you to skip the power down entirely for a 1% fee.
Since very few people use it, it could give us a rough idea of how much demand there is for faster power down.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Setting @likwid as beneficiary let you to skip the power down entirely for a 1% fee.
Since very few people use it, it could give us a rough idea of how much demand there is for faster power down.
This is true for the bloggers earning, but not true for the guy hodling 2M steem. It doesn't address the importance of liquidity in crypto if things are going down fast.
With 2m Steem you better sell over the course of 13 weeks otherwise you'll crash the price. Sad but benefits everyone.
50k, 10k even 1000 STEEM. Whatever someone's stake is, it might well be enough to be important to them.
There are some days when you could probably sell 2M STEEM or close to it without crashing the market, but they are rare. You definitely don't always need 13 weeks to do it, although sometimes even 13 weeks might not be long enough.
You don't find smaller fish paying to power down significantly for a very good reason – they need to use their funds. They are earning the token in order to leverage it, to turn it into something else – something usable. They are not investing those funds in order to vote more things up because they recognize their votes mean absolutely nothing in terms of value to others or themselves, so there's no significant benefit to powering up, they end up holding a lot of liquid STEEM/SBD, and then they either decide that they can sell it for another cryptocurrency they can buy something with or they hold it just as long as it takes for the perceived value to be worth selling off for something else.
Note that they can't do that second part and power up. It is directly antithetical to using the token to lock it in a box and keep you from using it.
In effect, the 13 week power down trickle is most devastating to the smaller holder. It provides them good reason to not invest in the platform, to not make use of what tiny amount of power their given, and keep themselves free to actually use token for trade.
The guy holding 2 million STEEM isn't earning a notable amount, percentagewise, from writing posts and posting pictures on the blockchain. He's a speculator. He may or may not even have an idea of what "value to a social media based blockchain" actually means. By observation, he probably doesn't, nor should he.
Effectively, a 13 week power down simply centralizes more power in the hands of whales and gives anyone smaller good reason not to invest and not to be involved. Which, not to put too fine a point on it, fits with the rest of the design.
This is why the bloggers that seek to earn STEEM need to also demand that the places they need to buy stuff from start to accept STEEM. If bloggers didn't dump on the exchanges the STEEM would likely be worth more and the bloggers would be getting richer due to this.
Additionally, if the businesses noticed that content producers want to spend STEEM with these businesses, the businesses might power up and grow their customer acquisition within the Steem community.
That's not their job. The job of a blogger is to write stuff that people want to read and try to get compensated for doing so. If a platform wants to be the choice of bloggers who want to get compensated, they need to provide compensation. Compensation that people can spend and get use of.
That is, after all, the ultimate point of compensation. Nobody works to get paid to stick that pay in a hole. They work to get paid to buy stuff. Since the only way to do that with STEEM is to dump it on doing exchange because nobody wants to take in exchange for something useful, that's what people do.
Neither businesses nor creators have any reason to go out of their way to enable STEEM when there are 10,000 alternatives (or even three) which do what they want it to do. Exchanges make it extremely easy to care very little about that core mechanic, and so both creators and businesses don't.
An entire community of creators on the Steem blockchain have been wanting, very publicly, to be able to spend their resources on useful crap for years. Everybody knows it. At no point has it ever been particularly easy and in fact remains an uphill battle because the obsession is for holding a token and not for actually using a token.
Putting it up on an exchange is effectively indistinguishable from spending it on anything else. If anything, it pushes down the actual value of the token because it will inevitably have to be exchanged in order to be useful. And yet, people such as yourself continue to demonize both exchanges and the people who want to get some good out of their work by using them.
That is a core problem with the Steem blockchain as an economic engine.
"That's not their job" is something a person not understanding money would say. A person smart about money is happy to make anything their job if it helps their bottom line.
The reason I said what I said is because while it is "not their job" it would benefit them and everyone on Steem.
The authors dumping is hurting the price, so much so is this true that @SBDpotato and @burnpost are two projects designed to reduce overall rewards going to authors, they siphon the value and send it to @null to fuck the authors over.
Authors could help themselves by urging local businesses to accept STEEM, but sure, I guess because "its not their job" they can just keep getting paid less STEEM valued at less USD.
Sir, I believe you deserve to know that you do not understand this stuff very well and should probably read more comments and write fewer ones.