Um, everything he just mentioned here, he wrote in the OP, no moved goal posts, this is the reality, you're the one claiming its easier now. It is for you, because you have an established audience. but, trust me, as having done really well, here, then needing to take some time away and power down to not quite starting from scratch, but close, it's nowhere near as simple as it was a year ago. Your making unsupportable blanket statements. The SP they start with is barely enough to do two or three small posts, or do ten votes, but not both, and then they have zero left to engage an audience with. It's much harder, plus, the SP they start with is a loan, not a grant like we had. Sorry inertia, you're wrong. Not saying it can't be done, but the path is not as clear as it was.
The way I understand it, I am being challenged to start a new anonymous account and post great content for three months to see if I can reach a $100, and if I can't, this is somehow proof that the platform cannot survive.
Sorry, but rhetorically speaking, that's moving the goal post.
Well, unless I'm mistaken, he said that in response to the idea you expressed, categorically, that it was easier now. Your wrong. I think that experiment would prove it to you.
You're averaging $34 a post, most of these people haven't seen that much in their first month of posting combined, face strict bandwidth limits you and I did not have when we started. All he's suggesting, if you read it, is that more people should actually upvote content they've read, instead of just renting out their votes.
The suggestion is that people accept for a 2% yearly return (upvoting) instead of a ~20% yearly return (renting out their votes). The platform obviously values one more than the other. You're suggesting that people make a sacrifice for the "greater good."
But, if you build a community of mutual support, the return on that voting power is limitless. But, you go ahead and accept that 20%, while the guys that are renting it from you multiply it, just like the fortune 500 companies do with 401ks. We use them because they are presented to us as the safe option, not because they produce the best results.
Um, everything he just mentioned here, he wrote in the OP, no moved goal posts, this is the reality, you're the one claiming its easier now. It is for you, because you have an established audience. but, trust me, as having done really well, here, then needing to take some time away and power down to not quite starting from scratch, but close, it's nowhere near as simple as it was a year ago. Your making unsupportable blanket statements. The SP they start with is barely enough to do two or three small posts, or do ten votes, but not both, and then they have zero left to engage an audience with. It's much harder, plus, the SP they start with is a loan, not a grant like we had. Sorry inertia, you're wrong. Not saying it can't be done, but the path is not as clear as it was.
The way I understand it, I am being challenged to start a new anonymous account and post great content for three months to see if I can reach a $100, and if I can't, this is somehow proof that the platform cannot survive.
Sorry, but rhetorically speaking, that's moving the goal post.
Well, unless I'm mistaken, he said that in response to the idea you expressed, categorically, that it was easier now. Your wrong. I think that experiment would prove it to you.
You're averaging $34 a post, most of these people haven't seen that much in their first month of posting combined, face strict bandwidth limits you and I did not have when we started. All he's suggesting, if you read it, is that more people should actually upvote content they've read, instead of just renting out their votes.
The suggestion is that people accept for a 2% yearly return (upvoting) instead of a ~20% yearly return (renting out their votes). The platform obviously values one more than the other. You're suggesting that people make a sacrifice for the "greater good."
Why give such terrible advice?
But, if you build a community of mutual support, the return on that voting power is limitless. But, you go ahead and accept that 20%, while the guys that are renting it from you multiply it, just like the fortune 500 companies do with 401ks. We use them because they are presented to us as the safe option, not because they produce the best results.