RE: Response to Steemit inc. Layoffs | Community Coding for Steem: Let's Make Steem TRULY Decentralised!
Yes, I am aware that the issue extends to running nodes, however, the current situation has been presented as that the nodes have paid support for the meantime. There is currently 55 million steem held in the @steem and @steemit accounts combined. I know that these accounts perform functions intrinsic to the operation of the blockchain, but if the choice was to sell some of those tokens or lose the blockchain, it makes no sense not to sell some. That level of funding can easily pay for what is needed for a significant time period.
I think the value of steem is extremely likely to increase, regardless of what happens on the blockchain, which can be seen literally every time there is a problem with Steem - instead of the price dropping, it just follows the moves of Bitcoin and may even go up at times that Steem is really facing a major challenge (rather than down as we may expect).
For these and other reasons, it makes perfect sense to offer Steem to the community in exchange for coding - it should have been done from the beginning. The 'problem' of coin selling by people who need them to live is really only a problem to investors looking for short term gains. Those who see the value of the project long term will probably think differently.
As far as company equity goes - I know nothing about that and have never even heard it mentioned in public by anyone who might know.. I presume Ned owns most or all of it - but they do have an 'angel' investor too.
I've commented on this elsewhere. Instead of dumping the tokens on the market and putting selling pressure on Steem, this should be done off market, with strategic investors or partners and after careful negotiations, in which not the price or the stake sold should be the main concern, but what is obtained during the negotiations. The new stake owner, terms and price should then be announced publicly. That of course would have been better to do when the situation wasn't as it is now.
Otherwise I completely agree with Indigo, we need more fiat into Steem, to grow its market cap, and not just play around with the little we have, because that only feeds the downward spiral.
I don't compare the situation to just what's happening in crypto, but what happens at most tech companies. As I'm sure you know having worked in tech startups yourself, payments that comes as stock in the company require vesting. The idea is to get the company to a stable position before there is downward pressure on the stock by employees selling large stake they are given. I think there is a wisdom to that that made it the industry norm.
Now granted, they only had the option of offering stock, not coins, so it is a little different. I don't think it's different enough though for that time tested experience to be ignored. And in fact, many crypto projects do duplicate that. The question is also for how long, which it can be argued that at roughly 3 years, all initial vesting would be done already anyway. But some vesting schedule are tiered over more like 10 years, and often 5.
I don't think it is the short-term investing view that sees the problem in these token dynamics. Quite the contrary. It is the long-term that brings the problems. In the short term investors are powered up. But there doesn't wind up being a long-term at all if everything is paid for by selling coins and the way it's being done leads to the coin price continuing to fall until it can no longer support essential expenses.
I don't know what effect more rapidly distributing that 55 million STEEM would have, but I can't image it would be good given that the current rate is already problematic. You mention the price going up even with the blockchain is having problems, but what I've noticed is the price going down faster than other coins. What I've noticed is the rank slipping and slipping and in danger of falling out of the top 50. All those other coins have also faced the same bear market, but we are losing relative position to them. I believe it is because there is an extra downward pressure on the price that is completely linked to such large amounts being distributed without any vesting schedule.
Now of course, there is a need for more community involvement, particularly by coders, to take over some of the responsibilities staff were fulfilling. But apart from their payment, I wonder how that would work given what you've already said about their communication, code commenting, and responsiveness. If they were like that with more staff, how will they be with staff stretched even thinner?
I am certainly hoping for the best here, but I can't say I'm feeling all that optimistic at this junction. I'm not seeing a clear path forward, other than whoever owns equity in the company being wiling to sell some to use THAT to cover operating expenses instead of selling STEEM to. And maybe then, with staff completely paid with fiat, it wouldn't be a problem to use STEEM payments for all the community programmers who volunteer to help. I just don't see increasing the rate of STEEM being paid out as being the answer when the low price of STEEM is what he said has precipitated the problem.
I'm not sure of the details of the equity, but Steemit inc. doesn't really turn a trading profit outside of the Steem tokens as far as I am aware - so in a sense I imagine the price of any stock in steemit inc. is effectively relatively moot in comparison to Steem tokens, which actually have value. That could well be why I never usually hear anyone even mentioning the subject. It would be interesting to see accounting for Steemit inc. - I just did some searches but couldn't locate them in D&B. If all of Steemit inc's work goes towards raising the price of Steem, but Steem isn't actually owned by Steemit inc. then the value of Steemit inc's work is to be measured in Steem and not shares. At least that's my current logic - it could change depending on the long term capacity of Steemit inc. beyond Steem.
I actually went to Steemit.com and Steem.com looking for a company address, but didn't find one. When I clicked on 'contact' on steem.com I went to an xml file instead of a page.. lol