You Might Have Heard Of Me...
I am the average user on STEEM. I had no prior crypto- or blockchain experience, but I joined Steem(it) in July 2016. I was working full time as a freelancer on SEOClerks at the time I "stumbled on" Steemit. My main business were brand building. I delivered nifty, breathtaking advertising campaigns with high-conversion rates to my clientele. I gave them exposure and I gave them traffic.
They went from zero attraction to fully-loaded, 24/7-exposure in days...
- And the rest was up to them.
I have published more than 1000 posts (articles) and I have written well-more than 6000 comments. I have published 4 articles per day 27 times in total and I have written a minimum of 1 post per day, 7 days per week for a total of 13 times since I joined in July 2016.
I have several articles that sits on top on google for specific searches, much like the one I show you in the cover image. If you search for: "how to get whale votes" on google, you can see for yourself. I brought my girlfriend here, she gave up. I have brought friends and co-workers here. They gave up. I have promoted Steem & Steemit for hundreds of thousands of people, I have launched successful initiatives and projects. I have encouraged people to stay when they've been on the brink of leaving...
I have bought STEEM-merchandise. I have given away hundreds of STEEM-business cards and I have spent countless hours on writing educational posts and how-to's. Even though the previous asapers-project has been inactive for a very long period of time, more than 200 people still sits on our Discord channel... I have donated STEEM & SBD to various projects and to help fellow Steemians to pay their medical bills or to put food on the table. I have donated Steem & SBD to the travel fund, @t-r-f, to help others go to STEEMFEST, even though I haven't been there myself...
I have done many, many other things...
And all of this comes from one of the average users on STEEM.
I don 't have to be an expert in blockchain-technology or some hot-shot crypto trader to be a Steemian. We have dedicated people around us with all those necessary skills and that knowledge. We need average users. We need John, James, Maria and Mary. We need the Smith's and the Williams. We need Bob.
We need to pave the way for those people, and we need to welcome them with open arms. We need to greet them with laughter, joy and a likeable community-spirit. Skip all the "decentralized" and "blockchain"-talk. That's mumbo jumbo for these people anyways so save your ink.
If I could bring thousands of people to my clients websites and salespages, I am convinced that people above my paygrade could do the same. I brought potential buyers, people knew what they were about to see...
- The rest was up to my clients.
I can't do that on or for STEEM, because the "potential buyers" wouldn't see the same potential I can see. Remember, I have been here long enough to have witnessed literally every single thing that ever happened here. I have been here long enough to have convinced myself that STEEM can be something truly lifechanging and revolutionary...
- What would convince the average user to stay?
My article on top of the trending due to votes worth 300 STEEM?
The greed, selfishness and the overall weird behaviour?
The lack of author and curation rewards?
The RC issues?
- What would you tell them?
That they should put in tons of effort and time and that they should write amazing, in-depth, super-high quality articles?
In all honesty, that doesn't work. It might have worked to some extent in the past, but it doesn't work nowadays. I mean, I have been here since July 2016, 1000+ articles and 6000+ comments later, and I can barely go beyond $1 rewards.
Look, I am not complaining about my rewards, but money is the first and main reason and goal for people to come here. STEEM have been promoted to the "outside world" like the treasure chest at the end of a rainbow with leprechauns running around all day long, throwing money at people...
- When was the last time you saw a unicorn?
I Am PRO 50/50.
@theycallmedan talked about 50/50 a few days ago. I wasn't as convinced as him. And I honestly can't say that I truly believe in 50/50 at this time either, but I want change. Without change, we will never reach the masses. Without the masses, we will never see the true potential of STEEM. - Curators need to change their approach, and 50/50 might be exactly what we are looking for...
Worst case scenario?
- I lose 25% of my $1 rewards.
Yup. And skip the "anarchy" angle, too. The average person doesn't spend 24/7 worried about which "freedoms" the "evil government" will take from them, next.
They can learn all that stuff later. For now we just need to "sell" our awesome community and interesting bloggers, and as a sideline there's this nifty thing called "Steem Power" which works a bit like a long term savings account that allows you to gradually become a "stake holder" in the social content platform you're using. How cool is THAT???
Forget the magical unicorn poop, and forget — REALLY FORGET — Jeff Berwick's infamous $30,000 Steemit post. Even though he seems to be a "hero" to some of the local population, that niche is about 0.01% of the broader population who likes cats, dogs, recipes and growing flowers.
Not anymore than it makes sense to insist to people that it's "tissues" and not "Kleenex;" Kleenex is a BRAND not a "thing." Nobody cares; so the term "Kleenex" sticks. Unfortunately, too many of the people with influence here live inside a little tiny bubble inhabited by blockchainiacs who have close to zero idea of how the remainder of the world operates.
My "market" is bloggers. The "pitch" is that this is a lot like "social blogging" like we had it (UNPAID) around 1999-2006, before Farcebook and MySpace killed that genre. The second pitch is that it's a bit like having a blog monetized with AdSense... extraordinarily slow, but UN-like AdSense, Google can't step in and arbitrarily suspend your account for having a thought they don't like, when you are $0.73 from the $100 payout threshold.
=^..^=
Nailed it.
Posted using Partiko Android
Yeah, it definitely seems like it. I mean, come on...
We have a platform were you can get paid to share content.
That should have been the only pitch you needed to bring in tons of people, but instead of reaching out to the "average users", they continue to target these niche-specific, anti-government types of people who lives in a basement somewhere. No wonder we're not close to a million active users...
I don't know, but it seems like people have very different visions about STEEM in general. It's impossible to work towards massadoption if the people with actual influence does things differently compared to the active users here.
Thank you for a superb comment. :)
I, like you am just an ordinary person. I do not believe that 50/50 will solve anything. I also do not believe we have very many real curators. We have people wanting to make a quick buck off the back and work of others. (I am actually fine with that when it comes to steem). I think people would be very hard pressed to find very many post that get voted on at day three of being posted. Most post votes are done by so called curators between 13 and 17 minutes of a post. That is not curation-that is looking to make a buck off of someone else's work - and I am fine with that being as it is an automated system.
If it should be decided to go with a 50/50 split because of curation efforts then the start time of the curation payout should be randomized. That will show me they really are concerned about the curation effort and not about the bottom dollar. A randomized start time of curation payout would mean simply that just because you voted for a post during the sweet spot (13-17 mins), does not guarantee you a better curation reward than someone who voted for the post on day 3 hour 17 minute 23.
No other change to the formulation needed. Just the start time of the post curation payout. Anything less than a randomization of the start time just means it is about the money and not the content.
I haven't thought about having a randomized start time like you mentioned, but sure. I wouldn't mind. However, people are here for the money. None will ever be able to convince me anything else.
99.5% of the users here are not crypto experts. They are not blockchain experts. They are Facebook, Twitter and Instagram users. They are average users and they are here to make money.
That is and will always be the number one priority. The community-aspect, making new friends etc. That comes further down the road. Why would the average Bob want new friends on a platform he doesn't even understand? Bob has friends on Facebook... This is why it's crucial for people to reward, encourage and educate newcomers. We want them to stay.
We don't have many manual curators. Most people are either selling votes or have set up auto-votes. That gives them a more or less passive income which is bad for STEEM. We need active people, because without active people, there will be no content to curate and earn from.
However, most "curators", who actually have impact on the rewards, are "investors". I say "investors" because some of them have bought stake and others have mined/earned it. And that's not the point I'm trying to make...
What matters is, that these "curators" makes more money by selling their votes. Some of them bought Steem when the price was higher than today, so they are trying to cover their losses. Others are doing this just to empower themselves and to get even richer. But that's also the whole point of being an investor. You invest. You risk money and hope make profit.
However, with a 50/50 split, curators would make less from selling votes, and it would encourage people to manually curate again. Or at least to put a bunch of authors on auto, to maximize the curation rewards. This is also one of the reasons I wasn't as convinced as @theycallmedan for instance. I'm not sure about this whole putting people on auto-thing...
It sounds like it would become a massive circle-jerk instead of more manual curating... But it's also something I would like to try. I wouldn't mind a 50/50 split, to see how things develop.
One thing is crystal clear though... People are here to earn money, and most people are more interested to grow their own accounts than to "spread the wealth" and empower others.
Yep, to all, and I do not disagree with the making of a buck by anyone on steem blockchain, that is why most came. The concept of curation is a nice one, but it still all boils down to making money for the investors, which everyone on steem blockchain is whether they see themselves as one or not. I myself just do not think they want the 50/50 split for altruistic reasons which is what those that want it seem to be trying to convince people of.
For now manual is the way I vote, that may change, it may not, time will tell.
This is why I was (still am) a bit skeptical too. 50/50 seems to be the perfect option for the rich to get even richer, at the expense of the poor...
But @theycallmedan have sort of managed to convince me that it would be the best option for the platform in itself.
@bashadow, I think many of the real curators around here can be found on Asher's Curation and Engagement Leagues.
I like the idea of random timing for the curation... of course, it would make all the people who see this as a giant "cash grab" squeal and protest.
=^..^=
Yes, I have been tracking my progress through Asher's leagues. People in the league may vote a wider day stance than most, but I still think there would be very few that vote on a post that is more than 2 days old. I am sure the average post age vote, would be higher for league members than for most that other curation type groups.
I hear ya @hitmeasap Been here a minute and realize some of the same things... but I also see Steem evolving and even growing, especially with all the new dapps and other stuff...
But what inspired me continues to inspire me, and that is Steem’s ability to help the individual through self effort as well as communal.
It isn’t easy and we aren’t becoming millionaires, but I know people who have ate, or been educated or had medical attention taken care of Because of Steem.
Full Steem Ahead!!
Posted using Partiko iOS
The dApps are probably the best things we have going right now. I obviously like it, but I don't think it will reach the masses. Steemit.com, is what people talks about before STEEM and/or dApps on the STEEM-blockchain... And that's why I think we need a change.
We can't just continue to tell people that "Steemit" and "STEEM" is two different things. Most of these average people doesn't care, because they want in. They want a piece of the pie. They don't care where the money comes from, how or why the money exists. They just want it.
That is very true. I have never dreamed of becoming a STEEM-millionaire, but who knows, right?
I have seen anything from a homeless person to an entire family getting help and support from STEEM. That's truly wonderful. I love the whole pay-it-forward mindset we have here. That mindset was here in the early days, and we still have that.. I need to believe that. But it's covered by all the greed and selfishness.
It is true that the Steem exosystem can be confusing at first, and I have had many friends and fam come and go, one even made a chunk of money, cashed and left and still hasn’t come back...but sadly for him it was a one time deal. While we are still here.
If you don’t believe in crypto then you usually fall by the wayside because they didn’t make money... but if you believe in the changes the crypto can bring and really has ready made to the world then you are here and will be here too!!
Why do you think many cryptos use Steem as an announcement platform while others use it as the platform, because of us the believers, the Steemians.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Good point.
I am a Steemian, but that's also the point. I want to be a Steemian and not a "blogger for crypto". But the average users, the people on Facebook, Twitter etc. They are, and most likely want to be "bloggers for crypto(money)". At least when they first arrive.
We can't change their mindset before they are here. But STEEM is struggling to keep users, so whatever we have done, doesn't seem to work. Our user-retention is proof of that. So if a 50/50 split between curators and authors could fix that, I am all for it.
The curation split is not what will fix the retention level. Personnaly I am against that idea!
Posted using Partiko Android
I hear you, and I am skeptical about it too, but I'd rather try that than continue like this. We need something that will change the behaviour of vote-sellers and "auto"-curators. We need something that makes the curators go out there and manually curate.
50/50 seems like something that actually would have an impact on that. At least from my understanding so far.
I curate manually and I really enjoy doing it with Partiko because is convenient, easy, and fast. One of thing I hate the most is the curation trails that kill the magic of curation, and most of them don't read the posts...
🎁 Dear @hitmeasap,
SteemBet Seed round SPT sale is about to start in 2 days!
When our started the development of SteemBet Dice game, we couldn’t imagine that our game would go so viral and that SteemBet would become one of the pioneers in this field.
In order to give back to our beloved community, we’ll distribute 4000 STEEM to SPT holders immediately after Seed sale. Plus, investors in this earliest round will be given 60% more tokens as reward and overall Return on Investment is estimated at 300%!
Join the whitelist on SteemBet webiste now and start investing! Feel free to ask us anything on Discord https://discord.gg/tNWJEAD
You simplified the the 50/50 split to a dangerous degree.
Its not just:
A 50/50 split makes the vote buying problem many times worse. But traf and kevin wont be sharing that fact with other people.
I might have misunderstood what you meant, but one of the major reasons for a 50/50 split is to reduce vote selling (vote buying), so I can't see why that would be a bad thing?
You might have meant that vote buying would increase by having 50/50, and I just misunderstood you first. But if that's the case, I think it would be the opposite, even though it might look like a 50/50 split would yield even greater results to vote sellers.
However, I have been skeptical and I am still a bit skeptical regarding a 50/50 change, but I've started to be in favor of a a 50/50 split recently. Mostly due to @theycallmedan.
From my understanding, vote sellers would earn more with 50/50, but they would earn less than they would have done if they voted manually or by having auto-votes, which ultimately becomes a "bait" to lure them into manual curation instead of selling votes. This would make the rich even richer, like every other change we've seen... But honestly speaking, that's not different from any other type of investment. The more you own, the more you earn.
The upside of this, would be that more users would be curated, which would yield us a stronger foundation. - However, this is where I'm the most skeptical.
I know I simplified it in general, and I admit that I don't know all the details about 50/50 and the entire impact of it, so feel free to enlighten me. Especially the part about traf and kevin. I'd love to get more insight and knowledge.
Because those that came up with this are wrong.
What will happen is that MB and SS adjust their prices. Buying votes will simply become cheaper in relation to getting higher vote values which will increase demand due to Steemit stupid algo.. No longer will you have to pay 10 SBD to have 11$ be written by your post. You will be paying something like 6-7SBD to have 11$.
The vote sellers wont be losing either. It will still be a far better option to get Curation + payment then Just curation..
And no, passive income whales wont start curating, they will look for the next easiest passive income opportunity.
And then theres the fact you can game the system...
There are many better options to fix or reduce the bot problem. Like changing the algo, cutting author rewards after the DAO, changing the flag system... A few more i cant remember now from the top of my head
Just wanted to jump in and point out vote sellers will receive terrible curation rewards are compared to people who vote great content at the correct timing. No one buys votes before they themselves upvote. 50/50 simply evens the playing field of a person did choose to want to curate.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Well yeah...
But that doesnt really matter. No amount of curation will force a passive income whale to curate actively when there is an equally good passive return option available that requires no effort.
They might get bad curation but manual curators are ineffective as is so not much would change. Kevin shared his curation roi a while back and he is very bad at it by his own admition. And that was at a time when he was trying and wasnt circle jerking.
This was never about saving steem or the trending page. This is about some large accounts with good intentions developing a jealousy of vote sellers..
For that very reason, cuting authors rewards by 25% after the DAO is the best path to take.
Reduces vote selling profits and sends those profits into the fund to improve Steem. It puts vote sellers and curator earnings on equal grounds.
Look, after Kpine stopped curating you Acid and Blocktrades are the only whales on Steem left that are worth a damn. Dont get pulled into the Kevin and Traf rhetoric due of increased gains because that could really hurt us. Look at the alternatives.
Would like to see vote selling services try to compensate for that extra 25% taken out. I mean, they could, but the profitability should be affected.
Maybe promotional cost will finally be what it is...a cost.
Look at smokie.io - their trending page destroys ours and they use 50/50 - I believe you are pushing your personal ideals too hard here. You say things like no amount and always, but that's not how life works. I would curate twice as much if it was actually competitive vote selling. if you'd like to come on my show and debate this that is fine but you have yet to even lay out an arguement. Simply saying people will still vote sell is not enough, at 50/50 - people can earn MORE curating then selling votes. Whales can passivly delegate to projects like curie who actually do good curation, as apose to a bidbot where they will get crap curation. Keep in mind; good curators can earn a lot more then what they originally put in, that is the goal to find good content first and be rewarded.
I'm not claiming to be right, I am open for whatever is best.
Lol. I wont look at Smoke.io since i cant take seriously a platform that is based around a drug. Just like i wouldnt take seriously a platform called Beer.io.
Of course im pushing my ideals here. Thats what opinions are based on. I have ideals that inform my opinions and i share them. Just like with every single other person that has something to say.
I know you would. Thats my point. Most people most of the time will continue to acting generally the same way.
Which is why im actually almost completely positive that the passive income whales wont start curating.
They signed up to make money, not spend time digging through hundreds of pages of content.
Person A continuously acts in a certain way because they are a certain way.
Youre assuming that if you change something that in no way requires them to change their behavior, that they will change their behavior.
Im saying they will not change their behavior.
What is more likely???
I hope you are open to whatever is best because you seem to sorely underestimating human greed.
The fact is, since we moved away from 50/50 a long time ago, Steems website rank has steadily fallen, and the trending has got steadily worse. How can you argue this is not a direct effect of vote selling because the rewards are 25/75. It is just a broken incentive system. That is my arguement.
Im not arguing that. Im a firm believer that bots negatively affect Steemit website rank.
My point is that 50/50 isnt the solution. Its exactly the opposite.
Im arguing against 50/50 because it will make the trending page even worse and vote selling a bigger problem.
Bring back the n2 and the whale experiment and our adoption worries will be over.
We will be wishing more people would leave, imo.
Nobody wants to pay to play a game where the only winners are the already rich.
That is very true. I might be wrong, but didn't n² make the rich even richer? I honestly can't remember... But I think most people voted about 10 times per day, at 100% during n² and they changed that to what we have now, to spread the wealth across the platform?
Stinc forked out the 4 vote soft cap, decreased votes from 40 to 10, made rewards linear, and some other changes because smooth and abit had put a vote cap of 800mv on all whales.
They flagged votes that exceded this limit.
Over ~8 days my vote went from .0000something to .04 then .08 stu.
Stinc hurried up and and made things worse, presumably because it was their sock puppets raking in the pool.
And, here we are more than 2 years later.
I say we bring back proof of brain.
I'm not alone, but the abusers still have too much control.
In my opinion we can't find a solution for as long as we think inside the "money" box. "50/50", "non-linear, 1.3x reward curve" as @trafalgar was proposing, all this is "thinking inside the money box".
Steemit has been indeed sold for the "money" aspect, but it had it right: "come for the money, stay for the community". To have money you need STEEM to be worth at least $2 or more, i.e. 4-5 times more than it is now.
When people start writing normal, everyday things ("did my jogging in the woods today, <picture of woods>") and earn $5 for that they'll start noticing.
How do we get there, how do we get STEEM back to $2 or more ? The answer is to forget the money and focus on community. @llfarms has started a discussion about a mission and a vision for steem. What is steem, why are we here ?
I have offered an answer in my latest post which points to MSF (Doctors without Borders), a charity, for Pete's sake. That is an organization employing more than 100 000 people and receiving more than 1.5 BILLION euros PER YEAR in donations, without a "product "or a "service" to sell
If MSF had a blockchain, its consensus would be called "proof of caring". The 100 000 people working for MSF they care and they "mine" with their work hours.
Forget "50/50" or other such "flash in the pan" tweaks. Rise you head up and look in the future: why are we here, to whom do we SERVE ?
If we, as steemians, do not serve anybody else outside of ourselves, then we don't deserve any money