RE: Rambling About Steem's Continuous Bleed; Steemit Inc's Potential & Disappointment
The market is ignoring it all for good reason: it doesn't necessarily mean anything. It doesn't add any value to Steem, if anything, it only damages it more. Yeah, you can earn more tokens from posting, but how many of those are going to be held? How many of those tokens are going to be listed on Binance, Bittrex, Poloniex, etc. etc.
People may be earning more with these tribes and extra tokens, but ultimately they're just going back into Steem which is then sold for something else. Even if that does bring in more people, it doesn't address any actual issues.
What's needed is features that burn Steem in a manner that doesn't just combat the selling pressure, but adds value to the platform. Just a random idea while writing this: 5% of monthly earnings become locked upon redemption, regardless of those earnings, they count as just 1 vote on a poll that requests most wanted features. Each user's vote of Steem is then burned.
That means useful features are highlighted to Steemit Inc, Steem is burned, and people each get 1 vote regardless of rep, stake, or earnings.
So I guess the ratio between enthusiast developers and actual users is not right. And without enough users all the developement doesn't really add to the value of steem and its social media platforms.
I'm not sure if Steemit Inc. is listening much. I'd find it perfect if they only took care of the 'infrastructure' and others did the developements. The workers proposal system might be a step in that direction; there one could implement your idea of burn/1 vote. It would be quite a step if this vote's value would not be in relation to rep or stake, but I guess this is a step too far; a lot of people on top rather like that hirarchy :(
There's a common misconception in crypto in which people believe it's truly decentralised. As much as we wish that were the case, I can't name a single cryptocurrency that has survived entirely through community alone. True decentralisation.
Each is at least governed by some central authority, even bitcoin. The difference is, is that these central authorities have steady roadmaps that they stick to, as well as encouraging users to vote on changes they see beneficial to the platform in a decentralised manner. Steem does not do this. Steem has witnesses, but let's be real: most don't really do anything. The real users have zero say in anything, despite raising their voices constantly.
There's the DAO working proposal coming on the upcoming Hard Fork where users can vote for worker proposals.
The news about it was actually on Condesk's front page for a while
https://www.coindesk.com/steemit-to-automate-development-funding-with-new-dao
Well, you need Steem to have Resource Credits. And when RC delegations are ready, dapps will need Steem to delegate RCs to new users to transact on the chain. With the RC delegations, onboarding becomes easier, because it is no longer a requirement for the user to by Steem. To ease onboarding even further, there's going to be light accounts where the dapp is having the control over the account, but the full ownership of which can be given to the user at will. This is the model that 3Speak is already using.
I don't even know if we can really call the small payment of Steem to create an account an issue at this point. I made a post literally at the same time you started replying, it mentions how we had massive growth here in terms of users, just nothing was done to hold them in. Creating an account was considerably more expensive then than it was now.