I would avoid changing monetary policy...if an investor was told he would get a certain % a year ...you can't then just turn around and tell him "sorry we changed our mind you won't get anything". it's basically fraud and theft. then good luck finding another fool to invest in Steem again.
Holding Steem Power only pays around 1% a year....it's very reasonable considering there's a 10% inflation (most of which goes to Authors! 69%!!).
if you have a problem with the initial distribution of Steem, then you should ask those who ninja mined Steem (mostly Steemit Inc) to pay for the work proposal system, voluntarily. Instead you are basically proposing to rob every Steem Power holder of their 1% yearly interest, even those who actually paid for their Steem Power.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
What he fails to mention about the 93% statistic is that it’s mostly owned by STINC (but we can’t be sure about this number because it’s not mentioned how he got it).
Mostly, what we see from his complaints/proposals is that he has some kind of problem with large invested users. Lost in his ire for them is the fact that some of them in the “top 1%” have actually bought their stake. They and others who mined STEEM in the beginning and did not dump all of their holdings on the market are the ones largely responsible for the fact that authors and devs are able to earn a lot of money by toying around on/with an immature/clunky/unappealing social media website and a blockchain that hasn’t really been welcomed by the larger crypto community.
Anyway - you’re right. Continually screwing investors (and particularly, appealing to the “redistributionist” mentality) is a great way to lose investor interest, which is already relatively low.
Please don't put words in my mouth ats. Sometimes I find you very difficult to interact with. If you could try to be less abrasive in the future that would be swell.
The 93% statistic was hosted on steemwhales.com, which hasn't been updated all that recently. So, the number is approximately 1-2 months old. The 93% was actually excluding Steemit's share, and makes the distribution worse. Similarly the distribution is made worse because many whales have alt accounts and some with a lot of steem and that wouldn't be captured by the distribution number I mentioned. So, best case scenario is 25ish people own 93% stake, but it's likely worse than that and by quite a large margain.
The proposal is to stop putting a stupid amount of inflation back into Steemit INC or any other mega whale. I don't think it's helping to grow the platform. We need new investors and new users more than I need Steemit INC to centrally hold another 5M steem. So, we can either reduce inflation, keep inflation the same and reroute to the other distribution paths, or reroute it a worker proposal system.
After some thoughtful discussion @timcliff and I thought it would be best in a worker fund because centralized funding for decentralized projects to help the ecosystem will help Steem take off and get out of our $1-2 rut. This empowers lots of people to do small tasks that help the ecosystem and that's what we need.
I'm also not saying we should redistribute their steem. You're the one calling for them to burn however much of it. I'm simply stating it's time to stop giving them more for a passive stake. This isn't a communist revolution post where we kill the Steemit Devs and take their Steem. It's a post to say "Hey, I think we can do better than giving up to 15% of our inflation back to the largest accounts." Let's give it to smaller accounts who do work on behalf of the network.
What I actually think hurts Steem as a community is high profile people running around calling Steemit Inc Stinc, and generally tarnishing an already hurt brand. I think it's better to tweak the economics of this place to favor sustainable growth and try to get to work building it with a funding source that wouldn't cost the platform money so much as reroute from steemit inc to the rest of the platform to use. I also think it needs some cheerleading to say "Hey, other than the distribution this place is pretty amazing." So, I've been doing that too.
Lastly, I'm not anti-investor, but I am anti-dumb investment. That inflation is basically imperceptible to everyone except Steemit, and I think we'd be better off putting our money in a decentralized place to grow. At the very least we should stop funneling more money back to Steemit.
Just when and if you respond please try to be respectful of me personally, this ecosystem, and the people working their ass off at Steemit.
I agree with you and I'm a whale. You got to be really shortsighted to not see the value in using some of the inflation to fund developement.
The claim that re-allocating this money will hurt investors is again very narrow minded.
Funding is key, it's what make or break a project. A funding mechanism would add incredible value to the steem blockchain. Besides, most crypto don't pay 'dividends' at all so steem would still rewards its investors far greater than other cryptos via curation rewards.
Your idea was discussed way back then already https://steemit.com/steemit/@trafalgar/a-problem-in-the-economics-of-steemit
@peaceandlove Are you an early investor in Steemit? I am really interested in increasing my Steem Power, but I find that solely by posting content alone, it is really hard to do so. Would you suggest us investing our own cash by purchasing STEEM to increase our SP?
This already exists. Anyone can propose any project and receive funding from the voting consensus of every other invested user. This has been done since the blockchain began. Why do we need to create it again?
If we don’t like the inflation for holding SP or its results, then get rid of it. There’s no need to add more complexity to the system by creating another separate allocation/consensus mechanism. Steem is already complex and complicated enough as it is.
Because a solid project usually needs a lot more than a couple hundred bucks.
IMHO, The SMTs that will be coming to Steem next year will kind of act like projects that the community can invest in through their respective tokens on the Steemit blockchain. Therefore this debate about allocating to different projects may become a moot point.
Are there any “solid projects” that exist on Steem today?
I agree with you regards friend if you can visit my blog and vote I would appreciate it
Big Thumbs Up to that.
Money is the least important when it comes to making a good project, you need more head than money.
I have to agree with you @peaceandlove ... No one is going to give away or burn their own money - but you have to spend money to make money. Investors and Steemit alike must now leverage their liquidity to benefit the overall Steem economy and this is critical. If you could spend 10-20% of your steem and impact the steem price by 100%+ you definitely should do that!
20-30 extremely wealthy busy people probably are not the right people to be distributing this liquidity so I think increasing Worker proposal funding warrants a good examination.
Right now I think @steemit INC and all of the whales and investors of this platform are in mortal peril! The threat I perceive is this : If someone was to clone the Steem blockchain and sharedrop to every Steem user their regular holdings, except morph the Steemit/whale accounts into worker proposal accounts Steemit could lose alot of its DEV/Content/Author community. Then the Community fund could continue to grow and spend only its interest on worker proposals.
Its important to note that our chain has the least buying pressure from mining cartels and this might be a significant factor in our exposure. Of course if giant mining cartels cant get in they're going to resort to FUD.
@ats-david Im not sure if you're trolling or what - The possibility that the overall steem economy could get a boost or a ROI from steem inflation is real.
We already have inflation. The worker proposal system is completely unnecessary, however. How would it work? People submit proposals, then a group of people vote based on how they want the pool allocated, then at the end of the voting period, the money is distributed?
We already have this system. It's called "blogging."
This kind of proposal system is needed on blockchains like Dash or SmartCash because they're proof-of-work blockchains without the kind of stake-weighted voting that we have here on Steem/Steemit to allocate/distribute rewards. It serves no real function here on Steem that doesn't already exist. If you want to fund worker proposals, all you need to do is create a group/community where you can share your ideas and vote on them.
In fact, this has already been happening since the Steem blockchain was launched. Worthwhile projects are already being funded via blog post rewards from announcements and updates, and even donations from various users. The only thing a worker proposal system would accomplish is reserving dedicated funds for projects...which would just add another rewards pool to the ones that already exist. It just adds complexity and complications to an already complex and complicated system - and would likely just lead to another avenue of abuse and waste, like funneling money into worthless Facebook advertisements to bought/fake followers of certain "influencers" around here.
As I said in another comment - if there is a serious concern about inflation going to whale accounts, then propose reducing or eliminating the inflation. That would have a bigger impact than creating a redundant pool and system for allocating/distributing funds.
And no...this isn't "trolling." I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Steemit Inc's burning 50% of their Steem Power would really be the solution. Or at least they could place that amount in the "Project fund" .
The problem is not genuine investors who bought Steem getting 1% interest, but Steemit Inc getting the lion share of that 1% as they own most of the Steem Power.
To be fair genuine Steem Power investors/holders should be getting an even higher % than just 1%. Total inflation is 10% (with 7% going to Authors) that means that Holding Investors are actually losing 9% in stake currently (unless curating,blogging etc)....and by removing that 1% they 'd be losing -10%.
Infact the idea of Bonds by @stephenkendal for rewarding long term holders with even higher interest rates would be fantastic to attract investment. but it will always be frowned upon till the vast majority of the Steem Power is in the hands of the few people who ninjamined Steem (so again burning half of that would be important).
Bottomline: real big investors are not interested nor have time to buy Steem to become curators (and curation rewards are crap anyway), but would invest if holding was profitable.
And for holding to be profitable I think they need to be offered a rate that somehow mitigates the 10% inflation.
Btw I also got the impression from your other thread about SBD that you are "anti-investor"...as you oppose a stable peg for the SBD which would actually bring a lot of value to Steem. Also in this thread you go straight for the 1% interest of Steem Holders....without even considering lowering that 69% for authors...which then goes straight to exchanges putting selling pressure on Steem.
Provocation: maybe we should take 10% from all the top trending post to fund those Projects. or do you think this post is really worth 500+$? ;P
We really need to be mindful that without investors this place won't last long, so just an author centric approach won't work.
So far investors have only been wasting their bitcoins for some mild entertainment.
Maybe there needs to be a Steem roundtable to focus on the economic model, I don't think it was well thought through and it doesn't seem to be working. Steem is an experiment....so the community and investors may accept yet another change...but after 2 years it is really time to have formalized and finalized an economic model that works for everyone : investors (aka holders), authors, curators and developers. The balance between all 4 is vital.
There's a lot of talk about "investors", but who are these people and why do they invest? Do they just hope they'll make a profit from cryptos going up in general?
I think the goal should be to draw advertisers, who might pay to promote their posts to the trending page, or buy the requisite SP. That way we get fiat money invested in steemit. But advertisers won't do that if most of the money is held by very few people. Internet ads, or posts, aren't made for a couple individuals.
So the best way to draw "investors", I think, is to draw people who, for one reason or another, want to spend their fiat money to get steem. And that's more likely to happen if wealth here is more equally distributed.
I think advertising is what steemit is trying to avoid in the first place. We start allowing advertisers to push their posts up the rank and the platform goes to shit like the rest of the social media world.
What's the reason for the "promote" button then?
Good question. I would assume for new users to get their articles they worked so hard on seen by a larger audience. I’m sure it wasn’t intended for spammy marketing or giant corporations to push their products into this space. I may be wrong.
@aggroed all for one is a great concept individualism. Isn't all that bad but better if we can distribute wealth to many
yeah I noticed that when I saw the other post he wrote "a defense of a high SBD." .
With a stable SBD we could have a vibrant market place which could bring a lot of value to Steem, but no....seems like some big voices in the community are only aiming for pumps and dumps, that's why they are so focused on gimmicky marketing and not substance.
The few investors that do get involved are then treated as cash cows to feed self entitled wannabe bloggers who just cash out. Some leeching SJWs even go around telling Investors that they can't upload their own posts. Madness.
Investor patience must be really wearing thin. Steemit is an experiment so some chaos was to be expected, and I'm still optimistic but it's time to clarify to the Investors what's in it for them.
Btw I've seen your suggestion in the other thread about burning 50% of the Steemit Inc ninja-mine...now that would seriously help the price!!! Several other blockchain companies did it.
Ripple did it then shoot up the price from .20 to 80+
I agree with @ats-david distribution of stake to the projects or marketing to help create awareness of steem blockchain outside of steemit.
As I always shout on top of my lungs, we need more investors to hold their steem, media to promote how fast steem process block transactions (3 seconds) and best of all it's FREE.
We are growing, very slowly but growing. Though in cryptocurrency, it seems we don't exist despite we're in the Top40.
Hold your steem!
Cheers,
@yehey
@ats-david and @lavater I'm very grateful for explaining what may be the cost of fighting Steemit's "inequality" by some kind of communist "nationalization" of steem power. A lot of small Steemians needed this explanation, myself included.
But @aggroed has stated that he is actually "pro-investors", and said: "whales will get slightly less Steem, but I think the value of every individual Steem they already have will be worth loads more". Can you possibly comment on that line of reasoning? Maybe instead of stealing whales property, Steemit community can develop some kind of serious business ideas for them? Is it impossible or wrong for some reasons?
Sure. It’s not exactly “pro-investor” to continually advocate protocol changes that would negatively impact investors or to continually blame “the 1%” for “minnows not making enough money.”
This is a proof-of-stake blockchain that allocates rewards based on stake-weighted voting. If you’re not happy with your individual results, there’s a way to improve them. Disincentivizing investment and appealing to non-investors isn’t how you get more investment and it doesn’t make you “pro-investor.”
I agree with you 100%, especially as a minnow trying to have my content rewarded.
who is STINC
People were saying exactly the same thing before HF16. Thank god that argument didn't convince anyone else we would still have 100% yearly inflation.
fair point. but we'll have to finalize the economic model at some point.
I can't see big investments getting involved into a platform that keeps changing its reward rules as it goes along.
White Paper was scrapped. Now we have the Blue Paper...and that will be scrapped too. Next will be Toilette Paper as it might last even less. At some point the basic rules need to be set in Stone.
People need to know what they are investing in...and at the moment it is a giant mess.
amazing
I believe in steem too