That is like telling the cast of Andy Griffith:
There is no need to ask for royalties, because there is no way for the studio to monetize on an episode after the initial airing.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That is like telling the cast of Andy Griffith:
There is no need to ask for royalties, because there is no way for the studio to monetize on an episode after the initial airing.
There is no monetization of Steemit content. There are no "royalties." Any "added value" is completely subjective.
There is no monetization of Steemit content.
The same could be said about YouTube in 2005 and many other successful websites when they were new.
Sure. We can say a lot of things about a lot of different sites. But we know this:
There is no monetization of content on Steemit. So what we post on a daily basis doesn't "add value" or "reduce/remove value" from the site. Any claim is completely subjective and the criteria would be arbitrary.
A site like Facebook does not earn its valuation because one user posts cat memes and another posts 20,000-word essays on the LTV. The content is pretty much irrelevant. That's not how valuations are made on social media.
The difference is that the centralized, privately owned model of YouTube lends itself directly to monetization of content in obvious ways once a critical mass of users and content is achieved, which is exactly what happened. Steem does not.
No, but there is abuse, and that is exactly why @dan is flagging @ozchartart. He is a rewards pool rapist and a scammer. He tried scamming me today! Whales upvote whales, regardless of how crappy the content may be. Just my .02 dust cents!