Social mindset: something costs too much; it has to be cheaper. No. If something is valuable, it should have a price and if you can't afford, then work until you can.
I'm not saying that communities have to cost 1000 STEEM, but we should implement a system, similar to the domain-naming system, where valuable keywords costs more. Otherwise, there will be squatters who take away thousands of valuable keywords.
And by the way, @yabapmatt is running one of the only business models on Steem which has a thriving ecosystem (Splinterlands). If there's someone you should listen to, it's matt.
This thread is full of people worried about adopting masses into Steem and how not spending enough money will... what, make it seem like a childish platform? What planet are you people from?
Work until you can, is just about the best way to drive away mass amounts of people. Like the mindset or not, it's the fucking truth.
I like your addition of a keyword system though. It could be a good middle-ground between our two differing views.
(Also, not to be antagonistic, but just because someone runs a successful business doesn't mean you should listen to them. "Appeal to authority" / "Listen to the top" is the most blanket & pointless statement I hear often nowadays.)
Work until you can, is just about the best way to drive away mass amounts of people. Like the mindset or not, it's the fucking truth.
Steem has been advertised as a platform with free-handouts. "Come to Steem, contribute and earn free money", which was a good way to attract masses of people who simply opened up their hands. But they're the same people who cry about Steem being ruled by whales. Truth is: the world is being ruled by power. And money (regardless of FIAT or CRYPTO) is just another form of power.
Selling Steem short by giving things away for free didn't work out, which is why I don't think it's smart to give away communities for 0.4 USD. Instead, IMO this will simply result in people not valuing the underlying product. It doesn't need to be 1000 STEEM, but it should be at least 5$ or 10$. If you don't have that, you're lying to yourself.
(Also, not to be antagonistic, but just because someone runs a successful business doesn't mean you should listen to them. "Appeal to authority" / "Listen to the top" is the most blanket & pointless statement I hear often nowadays.)
I'm not referring to them running a business. I'm referring to the fact that matt, aggroed and the rest of the Splinterlands team, created a thriving ecosystem, which has steadily gained in value. Even their own currency DEC has enough sinks to hold its value. Which is why their opinion should be valued.
Everyone's opinion should be valued, but I'm just saying that referring to their past (and tbf, current) success in spite of what they are actively saying is sorta a moot point. I look at what is being presented to me currently, which is a guy saying 1,000 STEEM should be the cost which, regardless of his history on this platform, is a crazy fucking idea to spout out.
We're not selling Steem short by "giving away" communities for cheap, we're lowering the barrier to entry. The reason Steem hasn't hit mass-adoption even though we've been signaling the "free handouts" as you call them, isn't because of them, but in spite of them. Steem never succeeded due to low levels of marketing, crypto-confusion to normies, fears of ponzi-schemes (which surely isn't helped by charging high fees for something literally every other community-based site offers for free), and an overall lack of clarity as to why the platform is special.
We need options for people to freely & easily hop aboard, poke around, try things out, and not be afraid to do things. Charging high fees for creating a community goes against this philosophy.
We're not selling Steem short by "giving away" communities for cheap, we're lowering the barrier to entry.
And in reality, what is the ACTUAL cost of making a community? Pennies? If that. Plus they need RC credits and thus need to hold Steem anyways. The more communities there are the more Steem that is being taken out of circulation. Making them expensive makes 0 sense and it's bad for everyone.
Hear hear, let's not ignore that aggroed just posted a, picture of a double rainbow and less than 20 words at a value of 20 dollars. This place is not worth discussing..
Agreed, the lower steem is valued the more it will be burned. We want communities to be attractive enough that it would create a good burn rate for steem. $0.40 or 3 steem would be way too low. If it's fixed to a specific dollar value and steem goes up in value, all you have to do is hold on to your steem till you can afford a community. Any name 5-6 characters or under should be sold at a premium price. Like if you tried to register "zap" you would pay 10,000-20,000 steem or something.
For non-premium names maybe $25-50 worth of steem.
How valuable is it really? Because right now, I'd say things aren't exactly looking very good for Steem in terms of users activity.
And how can they squat them if the communities are numerical ID's?
if you can't afford, then work until you can
Sure, it's easy to say work until you can. I'm not sure how well traveled you are, but you and I are from wealthy countries. Most of the world can't and that's a harsh truth. And they're supposed to be one of the primary benefactors of crypto. At least, that was the idea many years ago.
The increased barrier to entry just prevents more adoption. And no offense to @yabapmatt but, he's running a card game not the entire Steem platform. The work he's doing is great, but it's apples and oranges to what we're talking about here. Also, I didn't know Steem itself was supposed to have a profit driven model? I thought the witnesses were paid for their job to keep the chain up and running, no?
I agree, it should cost far more than three STEEM, which is 40 cents. 1000 STEEM seems reasonable, until the token value rises. Nobody will want to start a community for $5000, then the value drops, and the next member starts a community for $2500. I'm thinking the cost should be set in US dollars so the cost stays the same. Make it far more expensive than 40 cents, indeed, but a reasonable and consistent cost as well.
Why? How does that benefit anyone? You're adding another barrier to entry on a platform already dominated by whales. Most of the world is dirt poor too and this is all being compared to and priced in USD. It makes 0 sense. The price should be 100% determined on the cost to the network and that's it.
And as far as I know, the name squatting thing isn't even an issue based on how the system runs. So, that point shouldn't even be considered in the argument.
We'll have to find the happy middle ground. Making it too expensive is just as unwise as making it too cheap. A set cost is important. Someone could set up thousands of accounts for 3 steem each, at 40 cents, then sell those accounts for less than the cost of the three steem accounts in the future if the value increases, undercutting the source, and making a huge profit. Not good, especially if that source is designed to be beneficial to the economy as a whole.
A community should be able to gather enough resources to pay for their community, if they're poor. It doesn't have to be too expensive or overly expensive to the point only the wealthy can do it.
Who cares if they sell accounts for more in the future? That's what happens when you're the first to adopt a technology. You benefit from that.
But, again it seems like you're assuming these accounts have names which they will not. The accounts are numbers. The name squatting is not an issue. So, the only way I could see your argument actually taking place is if people were selling communities that they built up. Otherwise, it would only be worth the cost of creating one.
I'm not assuming the accounts have names. On the contrary. The accounts don't have names, so therefore, unless I'm mistaken, someone could purchase many accounts and sell those accounts for cheaper than the cost from the source, and the one purchasing could then name it and carry on much like they could if they purchased from the source.
"Who cares!" Obviously you care.
Think:
You don't want this to be dominated by whales
A whale comes and purchases many accounts.
That whale sells accounts, undercutting the source
The whale makes all the money
No more STEEM is getting burned to create accounts.
Because those wishing to create a community can simply purchase an account from the whale who's undercutting the source.
The whale makes all the money.
Steem and the community as whole does not benefit from the creation of communities, the one selling accounts is the only one making a personal profit.
Maybe I'm missing something? Maybe this problem has already been addressed? I still think a set cost would be beneficial, so one could not set up a community today for 40 cents, and someone down the road must spend $15 because the value of Steem spiked. The only way the source could be undercut is if the cost isn't set and consistent. The value of Steem fluctuates, therefore, someone could undercut the source, unless the cost of a community account remains the same, regardless of the value of the token.
I'm not assuming the accounts have names. On the contrary. The accounts don't have names, so therefore, unless I'm mistaken, someone could purchase many accounts and sell those accounts for cheaper than the cost from the source, and the one purchasing could then name it and carry on much like they could if they purchased from the source.
If they purchase the accounts and sell them cheaper, they're losing money.
Why would someone buy a bunch of accounts and sell them cheaper? That makes no sense at all. They're losing money to accomplish what exactly? Unless you mean they buy the accounts, then hold them and hope the value increases, then sell them cheaper and make a profit. I mean, I guess that's a risk/reward thing. But, a set cost could fix that easily.
Also, I agree with a set cost given the current volatility of crypto. But, I think the set cost should be based on whatever it costs the network to create the community. Maybe plus a couple percent to throw into the DAO too. Raising the cost just for the sake of raising it as the OP suggests is just plain stupid though.
"Who cares!" Obviously you care.
Also, my "who cares" was in response to people buying a lot of communities. They still need RC and thus Steem to run them, so it would benefit us all in the end.
If they purchase the accounts and sell them cheaper, they're losing money.
If I purchase 1000 accounts today at three steem each, that'll cost about $400. If the value of Steem rises, it still costs 3 STEEM to create a community account, but I could sell accounts for 2 Steem, and make a profit, because 2 STEEM then is worth more than the 3 STEEM were worth when the account was purchased. If steem was worth $5 each, $15 would be needed in order to create a community account, but I could sell accounts for $10. I could sell 40 of my 1000 accounts for $400, and still have 960 accounts to sell.
Do you see now how you're missing the point and just yelling at the clouds?
"But a set cost would fix that." Yes! And that's all I'm saying! LOL! Damn.
You also need to realize that having people create a ton of communities benefits Steem holders. They need to hold Steem to utilize them. Raising the cost will ultimately affect the potential value of Steem.
You have to consider competition as well. Why come here and pay to create these communities when they can do it on Reddit or elsewhere for free? Sure, you can make a little money. But, it's not easy and the money made by most people on here isn't enough to keep them here. Just look at the amount of active users here. Not very many.
A community should be able to gather enough resources to pay for their community, if they're poor. It doesn't have to be too expensive or overly expensive to the point only the wealthy can do it.
Yes, they need Steem which gives them RC credits. That's how the communities are able to run. This all ties back to communities needing to hold Steem. Thus increasing the value of Steem. So having a higher barrier of entry to just creating the community is a terrible idea and will hurt us all at the end of the day.
Btw, sorry for all the replies. I'm on my phone and it was easier to sort out my thoughts this way lol.
Too many replies, and we're going all over the place. I'm saying if there's a cost (there is) it should be a set to one dollar value and remain consistent.
You can have your opinions about the place and everything else but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.
If we want to encourage serious businesses to enter STEEM, then we need to forget about providing all services for ... pennies. That's simple as that. Steemit need to decide: do they want to make build business or do they want to give something average to average mass consumer and earn average revenue.
I agree that 3 Steem creation fee is too low in general. I would rather like to see a requirement to hold Steempower in the main Community account in order to stay active. The amount of Steempower to be hold in the main account depends on the size of the community. Lets say per 1000 users maybe 100 Steempower for example.
Instead of forcing people to pay a certain price for creating a community I would rather like to see requirements for the certain size of each community.
No, it shouldn't.
more domination for the whales. wooo.
Social mindset: something costs too much; it has to be cheaper. No. If something is valuable, it should have a price and if you can't afford, then work until you can.
I'm not saying that communities have to cost 1000 STEEM, but we should implement a system, similar to the domain-naming system, where valuable keywords costs more. Otherwise, there will be squatters who take away thousands of valuable keywords.
And by the way, @yabapmatt is running one of the only business models on Steem which has a thriving ecosystem (Splinterlands). If there's someone you should listen to, it's matt.
This thread is full of people worried about adopting masses into Steem and how not spending enough money will... what, make it seem like a childish platform? What planet are you people from?
Work until you can, is just about the best way to drive away mass amounts of people. Like the mindset or not, it's the fucking truth.
I like your addition of a keyword system though. It could be a good middle-ground between our two differing views.
(Also, not to be antagonistic, but just because someone runs a successful business doesn't mean you should listen to them. "Appeal to authority" / "Listen to the top" is the most blanket & pointless statement I hear often nowadays.)
Steem has been advertised as a platform with free-handouts. "Come to Steem, contribute and earn free money", which was a good way to attract masses of people who simply opened up their hands. But they're the same people who cry about Steem being ruled by whales. Truth is: the world is being ruled by power. And money (regardless of FIAT or CRYPTO) is just another form of power.
Selling Steem short by giving things away for free didn't work out, which is why I don't think it's smart to give away communities for 0.4 USD. Instead, IMO this will simply result in people not valuing the underlying product. It doesn't need to be 1000 STEEM, but it should be at least 5$ or 10$. If you don't have that, you're lying to yourself.
I'm not referring to them running a business. I'm referring to the fact that matt, aggroed and the rest of the Splinterlands team, created a thriving ecosystem, which has steadily gained in value. Even their own currency DEC has enough sinks to hold its value. Which is why their opinion should be valued.
Everyone's opinion should be valued, but I'm just saying that referring to their past (and tbf, current) success in spite of what they are actively saying is sorta a moot point. I look at what is being presented to me currently, which is a guy saying 1,000 STEEM should be the cost which, regardless of his history on this platform, is a crazy fucking idea to spout out.
We're not selling Steem short by "giving away" communities for cheap, we're lowering the barrier to entry. The reason Steem hasn't hit mass-adoption even though we've been signaling the "free handouts" as you call them, isn't because of them, but in spite of them. Steem never succeeded due to low levels of marketing, crypto-confusion to normies, fears of ponzi-schemes (which surely isn't helped by charging high fees for something literally every other community-based site offers for free), and an overall lack of clarity as to why the platform is special.
We need options for people to freely & easily hop aboard, poke around, try things out, and not be afraid to do things. Charging high fees for creating a community goes against this philosophy.
And in reality, what is the ACTUAL cost of making a community? Pennies? If that. Plus they need RC credits and thus need to hold Steem anyways. The more communities there are the more Steem that is being taken out of circulation. Making them expensive makes 0 sense and it's bad for everyone.
Hear hear, let's not ignore that aggroed just posted a, picture of a double rainbow and less than 20 words at a value of 20 dollars. This place is not worth discussing..
Posted using Partiko Android
Agreed, the lower steem is valued the more it will be burned. We want communities to be attractive enough that it would create a good burn rate for steem. $0.40 or 3 steem would be way too low. If it's fixed to a specific dollar value and steem goes up in value, all you have to do is hold on to your steem till you can afford a community. Any name 5-6 characters or under should be sold at a premium price. Like if you tried to register "zap" you would pay 10,000-20,000 steem or something.
For non-premium names maybe $25-50 worth of steem.
How valuable is it really? Because right now, I'd say things aren't exactly looking very good for Steem in terms of users activity.
And how can they squat them if the communities are numerical ID's?
Sure, it's easy to say work until you can. I'm not sure how well traveled you are, but you and I are from wealthy countries. Most of the world can't and that's a harsh truth. And they're supposed to be one of the primary benefactors of crypto. At least, that was the idea many years ago.
The increased barrier to entry just prevents more adoption. And no offense to @yabapmatt but, he's running a card game not the entire Steem platform. The work he's doing is great, but it's apples and oranges to what we're talking about here. Also, I didn't know Steem itself was supposed to have a profit driven model? I thought the witnesses were paid for their job to keep the chain up and running, no?
I agree, it should cost far more than three STEEM, which is 40 cents. 1000 STEEM seems reasonable, until the token value rises. Nobody will want to start a community for $5000, then the value drops, and the next member starts a community for $2500. I'm thinking the cost should be set in US dollars so the cost stays the same. Make it far more expensive than 40 cents, indeed, but a reasonable and consistent cost as well.
Why? How does that benefit anyone? You're adding another barrier to entry on a platform already dominated by whales. Most of the world is dirt poor too and this is all being compared to and priced in USD. It makes 0 sense. The price should be 100% determined on the cost to the network and that's it.
And as far as I know, the name squatting thing isn't even an issue based on how the system runs. So, that point shouldn't even be considered in the argument.
We'll have to find the happy middle ground. Making it too expensive is just as unwise as making it too cheap. A set cost is important. Someone could set up thousands of accounts for 3 steem each, at 40 cents, then sell those accounts for less than the cost of the three steem accounts in the future if the value increases, undercutting the source, and making a huge profit. Not good, especially if that source is designed to be beneficial to the economy as a whole.
A community should be able to gather enough resources to pay for their community, if they're poor. It doesn't have to be too expensive or overly expensive to the point only the wealthy can do it.
Who cares if they sell accounts for more in the future? That's what happens when you're the first to adopt a technology. You benefit from that.
But, again it seems like you're assuming these accounts have names which they will not. The accounts are numbers. The name squatting is not an issue. So, the only way I could see your argument actually taking place is if people were selling communities that they built up. Otherwise, it would only be worth the cost of creating one.
I'm not assuming the accounts have names. On the contrary. The accounts don't have names, so therefore, unless I'm mistaken, someone could purchase many accounts and sell those accounts for cheaper than the cost from the source, and the one purchasing could then name it and carry on much like they could if they purchased from the source.
"Who cares!" Obviously you care.
Think:
Maybe I'm missing something? Maybe this problem has already been addressed? I still think a set cost would be beneficial, so one could not set up a community today for 40 cents, and someone down the road must spend $15 because the value of Steem spiked. The only way the source could be undercut is if the cost isn't set and consistent. The value of Steem fluctuates, therefore, someone could undercut the source, unless the cost of a community account remains the same, regardless of the value of the token.
If they purchase the accounts and sell them cheaper, they're losing money.
Why would someone buy a bunch of accounts and sell them cheaper? That makes no sense at all. They're losing money to accomplish what exactly? Unless you mean they buy the accounts, then hold them and hope the value increases, then sell them cheaper and make a profit. I mean, I guess that's a risk/reward thing. But, a set cost could fix that easily.
Also, I agree with a set cost given the current volatility of crypto. But, I think the set cost should be based on whatever it costs the network to create the community. Maybe plus a couple percent to throw into the DAO too. Raising the cost just for the sake of raising it as the OP suggests is just plain stupid though.
Also, my "who cares" was in response to people buying a lot of communities. They still need RC and thus Steem to run them, so it would benefit us all in the end.
If I purchase 1000 accounts today at three steem each, that'll cost about $400. If the value of Steem rises, it still costs 3 STEEM to create a community account, but I could sell accounts for 2 Steem, and make a profit, because 2 STEEM then is worth more than the 3 STEEM were worth when the account was purchased. If steem was worth $5 each, $15 would be needed in order to create a community account, but I could sell accounts for $10. I could sell 40 of my 1000 accounts for $400, and still have 960 accounts to sell.
Do you see now how you're missing the point and just yelling at the clouds?
"But a set cost would fix that." Yes! And that's all I'm saying! LOL! Damn.
You also need to realize that having people create a ton of communities benefits Steem holders. They need to hold Steem to utilize them. Raising the cost will ultimately affect the potential value of Steem.
You have to consider competition as well. Why come here and pay to create these communities when they can do it on Reddit or elsewhere for free? Sure, you can make a little money. But, it's not easy and the money made by most people on here isn't enough to keep them here. Just look at the amount of active users here. Not very many.
Yes, they need Steem which gives them RC credits. That's how the communities are able to run. This all ties back to communities needing to hold Steem. Thus increasing the value of Steem. So having a higher barrier of entry to just creating the community is a terrible idea and will hurt us all at the end of the day.
Btw, sorry for all the replies. I'm on my phone and it was easier to sort out my thoughts this way lol.
Too many replies, and we're going all over the place. I'm saying if there's a cost (there is) it should be a set to one dollar value and remain consistent.
You can have your opinions about the place and everything else but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.
No, it should be free!
Hi @yabapmatt
I agree with you.
If we want to encourage serious businesses to enter STEEM, then we need to forget about providing all services for ... pennies. That's simple as that. Steemit need to decide: do they want to make build business or do they want to give something average to average mass consumer and earn average revenue.
I agree that 3 Steem creation fee is too low in general. I would rather like to see a requirement to hold Steempower in the main Community account in order to stay active. The amount of Steempower to be hold in the main account depends on the size of the community. Lets say per 1000 users maybe 100 Steempower for example.
Instead of forcing people to pay a certain price for creating a community I would rather like to see requirements for the certain size of each community.