RE: HF21: SPS and EIP Explained
Regarding SPS why take away 10% of the reward pool in order to pay for things that are being built anyway? This building is being done organically and the builders are actually creating business models with outside income sources. This will take away incentive! In my worst English "if it ain't broke don't fix it!"
Steem's economic model is broken. That's a fact. Otherwise, we wouldn't be losing relative market-valuation constantly. Inflation is being generated and sold on exchanges, but the buy pressure is not big enough to sustain a high market valuation.
And regarding taking from the reward-pool: the majority of it isn't being utilized effectively. The inflation should have been something that is advancing this ecosystem, but only a niche group of people are actually doing something. SPS will hopefully help to have more streamlined goals for people to be rewarded for actual work done.
this a bear market, the low of 40 cents is alot higher than the lows of 2016. For steem to work it needs investors and believers. Authors are the ones who dump steem because they are effectively working and need paying. I believe the Hardfork encourages more of an investment mindset which is crucial for the steem price and ecosystem long term. It is not broken it is a bear market and we ride it out with every other alt coin.
That's not entirely correct. We're at 4400 satoshis right now, which is far lower than when Steem was at its lowest in terms of USD valuation. Which essentially means: Steem lost a lot of value in comparison to BTC and other alt-coins which did much better (EOS for example).
I've written quite a lot of posts over the last 2 years and the only reason I'd power-down those author rewards, would be for tax purposes, but not because it's such hard work. On contrast, creating content on Steem should be fun and I'd argue that the majority creators on Steem aren't professionals in the traditional sense.
Now, while authors are of course part of the dumping problem, I agree with @whatsup that most of it was done by early stakeholders (incl. Steemit Inc.) But that's part of the game. What we need are more incentives for people to hold their Steem and buy more of it. And this is not happening with authors alone. Everyone can read/watch their content without spending a dime.
in all respect your twisting what im saying. Im not talking about satoshi im talking about dollars. The only people who are going to buy steem and hold it and take it off exchanges are curators. They now how more incentive to do so.
You said that the valuation of Steem is higher than at the all-time low. But that’s only because BTC is at 9400$+. Looking at the USD can give the image of Steem price being good, but it’s far cheaper than it has ever been.
That's correct. As long as people actually want to hold Steempower. Which is why 50/50 is so important.
i dont care, its still higher in what matters, money.
Obviously STEEM was not ranked 69th(!) at CoinMarketCap some months ago, so of course you are right, and the problem is not only a general bear market!
But I really wonder why many 'stake holders' care so much about their ROI? What does it help to get a bigger part of a cake which is getting smaller and smaller? I prefer to have a smaller part of a huge cake. :)
If I knew it would let the STEEM price increase significantly, I would accept not to earn one single STEEM from now on. :)
Why do people buy BTC? Because they want to earn as much as possible interest or because they believe the value of BTC should rise?
In my eyes a real curator loves what he is reading and will curate anyway, he doesn't care if curation rewards are 50 or 25 % (and won't just join automated trails without reading what is he upvoting).
When I upvote stuff I upvote it because I like it. I don't care when I upvote (if for example after exactly 15 minutes), and how many other users have already uptoved that post.
I intentionally seek posts from new and/or unknown authors to give them a dollar or two.
With 50 % curation rewards I can't give them the same amount in future, because then I myself will get a big part of my own upvote back (as curation) instead of being able to support the authors! Sounds ironic anyhow: then I want but cannot anymore support people ...
I don't need to earn a lot of STEEM anymore because if the price will rise, I am rich anyway, if not it also doesn't matter to have even more STEEM (then I will enjoy my BTC). :)
Less than ~10% of rewards are received by creators. @arcange publishes daily statistics that reveal the exact numbers, and my last check showed the median payout was .01 SBD (median = what most people receive), yet the average payout was ~15 times that. That is because the vast majority of rewards are paid out to 35 whales, not the rest of us. Their few posts and comments receive ~90% of payouts from the rewards pool, about a third of that from bidbots. The below chart is almost two years old, and despite repeated requests for a current updated chart, I have been unable to get one. The authors have changed, but the curve is practically unchanged.
It is not creators that impact the price of Steem, because they hardly get any of it. It is profiteers, manipulating rewards by their substantial stake weight, that extract almost all the value of the economic activity on Steem, and prevent capital gains from ever impacting the price of Steem - because that value is instead diverted to their wallets as tokens, rather than raising the price of tokens.
Check @arcange's latest post for the most recent relevant statistics.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
He said relative market valuation and he's absolutely right. In the crypto market, which as a whole has indeed been in a bear market, Steem has dropped from top 10 to top 20 to now barely holding on in the top 70 (!). Some of that is due to promising new projects which took their spots in the high ranks, but mostly it is due to being much lower than projects which Steem used to considerably out-rank.
Blaming Steem's relative performance on the bear market is way off base. This is mostly on us.
dude, every single altcoin is in the gutter. Every single one except BNB and litecoin. He is not right, he is twisting my words to suit his own argument. I said steem is higher now and holding on to 40 cents which is way above the 0.03 cents of the lows in 2016. Thats all the matters nothing else, when Bitcoin tops 20k Steem will scream back up to 3 and 4 dollars. People dont understand crypto, fundamentals have got nothing to do with it. Its all relative, when one coin makes a run for it and hits a crazy price everyone says well if that xyzzy coin can be that much then every other worthless coin can be worth more too. That all feeds into itself and the casino and hype becomes alive again. I laugh when people talk about marketing and this and that, its a joke. Nobody uses this stuff yet its not happening like we thought it would its all speculation, all of it, fuelled by hot money coming out of nowhere. Slagging off steem and people saying its doomed does not help though i agree but it makes no real difference, because when it all kicks off again steem will be the best thing since sliced bread until the bear market attacks again.
Yeah and at least 50 of them have STILL managed to outperform Steem.
Stop making excuses.
Most of the Authors can not hurt the price. The dumping comes from above.
Much of the stake is not being allocated to create value at all. It is a difference in opinion on what brings value.
The eyes of the community cannot support all of the dumping, but it is mathmatically impossible for the dumping to come from most authors. The witnesses also sell to pay expenses.
Although I am not a fan of how they are approaching this, I do hope it teaches people why it is important to fight abuse. We can't change SteemIt Inc's selling, but do we have to support self voting, bot abuse etc? If people learn to downvote maybe not.
By the way I agree the funding of the SPS should have come out equally, it does need to be funded.
Agree and disagree. Yes "most authors" purely counting numbers can't hurt the price because their earnings are tiny. But the reward pool in the aggregate is responsible for a large portion of the selling pressure, in that it totals about 17 million STEEM per year, far more than what even Steemit is selling (about 9.6 million per year).
Not 100% of the reward pool is sold immediately but a very significant piece is, and of that which isn't sold immediately, a lot of that ends up being sold somewhat later anyway.
17 million STEEM/y is important, it is a big challenge to find enough investors to float that selling, and we need to be very careful to make sure it is used effectively.
You are under the assumption that the stakeholders and witnesses are better at directing it at places that add value. Based on the distribution and the last 3 years, I disagree.
It is not the tiny users that have run down the price and run end users off. They just don't have the power or the stake.
You and I both remember the original distribution. Any changes in that are a result of large stakeholder selling and small accounts buying or holding.
My view is that the mechanism which has been used for that for the last 3 years has been severely flawed and these new mechanisms are much better, especially the SPS mechanism which apparently (I say because I have no personal experience but I believe those who claim it) has a track record of working well on Bitshares.
IMO with the exception of Steemit nearly all large stakeholders selling from the original distribution has long since occurred. What is left of the original distribution, people have mostly decided to keep long term (there may always be exceptions and people may always change their minds, but it isn't a constant flow of selling). And remember, in the original distribution Steemit had 80% and everyone else shared 20%.
But numerically the inflation paid out to content rewards matters a lot. It is more than the rate at which Steemit is selling, most probably higher than the net rate at which all whales, Steemit included, are selling
To be clear, this does not mean content rewards going to minnows. Most of it goes out at the top. But we also can't micromanage where it goes. Maybe with better mechanisms we can have some chance of managing it at effectively all.
Inflation being sold is irrelevant compared to steemit inc selling rate, isn't it?
Mostly yes. But instead of working to create revenue to solve the problem we seem to be trying to plug a leaky damn by putting our finger in the holes.
Imagine if steemit.com structured things in order to bring in tons of new users which in turn would boost their ad revenue, instead of making it even harder to on board new users, which will ultimately reduce their ad income and likely spell their demise.
Hell no. Author rewards (not all of inflation but the biggest single piece) are currently about 17 million STEEM per year and Steemit sells 9.6 million. Not all of author rewards are sold (nor other components of inflation) but you can be damn sure that a lot of it is. It is very, very wrong to dismiss inflation and rewards as a source of selling pressure.
Okay thanks for putting things into perspective. I had no idea how much STEEM steemit inc were selling.
I guess we still have a few years to get STEEM on the cheap while inflation is high, and then the price won't go down as much.
That is certainly one way to look at it. And in addition to Steemit eventually slowing and/or stopping their selling, the baseline inflation declines by 1/2% per year. So yes, over time, the amount of available new Steem will decline a lot.
You are why Steem's economy is broken, and are the best example of that malfunction. You extract it's value for your personal profit before the economic activity and infrastructure can produce capital gains.
Less than ~10% of the rewards are reaching the intended destination of rewards: content creators. Almost all rewards are being extracted by manipulative financial mechanisms, and end up in the wallets of whales. You are the niche group 'doing something', and the something you are doing is preventing capital gains. The whales are cutting their own throats by concentrating all the value of the economy into their wallets, each to the maximum degree possible. EIP is a set of mechanisms to increase the rate of extraction of value before it creates capital gains. Halving author's share of rewards and instead delivering twice as much to those extracting it with the weight of their stakes, increasing the exponential power of stake with the modified rewards curve, and availing free flags to flaggots censoring creators that returns rewards the community sought to provide them as incentive to the rewards pool, where you can extract it instead, all increase the rate of extraction of rewards by stake weighting, and suppress capital gains.
You and your ilk are doing so because you can simply move on to the next victim once you've drained the host economy of the stake you extract. Steem will be a corpse, drained dry by your parasitization, left to blow away in the winds of avarice, leaving the gems that could have instead have been nurtured by substantial stakeholders to create capital gains for all investors; censorship resistance (in a world more silenced every day); one of the best blockchains ever written; a currency model that made transaction fees obsolete and proved microtransactions not only viable, but scalable both globally and fiscally, and a social media use case that could have leapfrogged every business model extant - had you only been willing to rely on capital gains for your ROI.
Should Steem somehow remain viable after you profiteers have moved on, perhaps the remaining users will be able to implement sound policies that encourage investing for capital gains, and then be able to grow instead of feed parasites.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.