Sure, but those are backed by known and stable institutions. The crypto world is a different matter altogether.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Sure, but those are backed by known and stable institutions. The crypto world is a different matter altogether.
Well, I think the goal is for steem and steemit to become known and stable institutions. They are incorporated, there are names and faces associated with the corporate officers, the code is open to inspection, and they've been around for over a year. I can see how a holding requirement might appear scammy if they were operating in the shadows, but they're not.
And at this point, anyone who was spooked by scam fears and wants to power down has done so. The only friction that remains in the system is friction that people have chosen to accept. I see no clear benefit to disrupting the current architecture.
Sure, but you're being logical. That's not how the crypto world works. It's all about perception and emotions rather than facts and logic. There was a massive FUD campaign against Steem last year, and many still believe Steem has failed, is a scam etc. As the price increases lately suggests, more people are coming round to the facts, but Steem still has a perception problem.
Of course, I agree with you about not disrupting the current system. This is merely discussion, and I'd only agree to this change if we're sure the benefits greatly outweigh the risks.