RE: Solutions to bring Steemit to the Mainstream. Discussion thread. Share Your Solutions. Help Us Attract Steem Developers Attention. Lets Make Steem One of the Top 10 Global Media Platforms!
I must agree with you @worldclassplayer "I think there is value in not having too much rule or enforcement." I have only been on Steemit for one month so obviously not as experienced with the entire operation. What caused me to even look at Steemit was the fact it was a community based platform which embraces the whole. The $cryptocurrency is a big plus as it moves us away from the central banks, but was not my deciding factor.
From what I can see thus far is that the Steemit platform is more of a "pay for performance" strategy and that appeals to me. I am moving away from a social network that has taken it upon itself to censor and manipulate their platform in such a way it is not beneficial to put together work teams or even for an individual to exercise their right to free speech.
Here I feel the community will monitor their own community. If our performance is worthy,we benefit. If it is not, we do not benefit. This should eventually take care of alot of the househeeping issues on its own. I may change my mind later down the road as the platform grows and changes as it surely will, but for now I see no need to commandeer new rules and restrictions.
I only hope that which ever direction we take that peace be the journey, @vickiebarker
Yes, Yes, and Yes @vickiebarker and @worldclassplayer. I agree with all points you have both shared and resonated with.
And, i want to bring to your awareness.... If steem continues like this its currency value is going to tank to the point where potentially it will become nearly impossible to sell.
Even if mathmatics and economics are not your specalialty..... please stay with me as i try to explain this.
A users steem power when upvoting increases the value of a post by 1 cent per 100 dollars worth of steem. 1000 dollars is 10 cents. 10000 dollars is 1 dollar. 1 million dollars is 100 dollars. 100 million dollars is 10000 dollars.
If each user can vote 10 times a day at full power, thats 100k dollars worth of steem each day for a 100 million dollar investment. Thats 36.5M dollars a year. A 3 year ROI. Thats OFF THE HOOK. When steem gets big investors WILL BE ALL OVER THIS.
If an agency put a billion dollars into steemit, they would produce 365 million dollars worth of steemit a year.
If multiple agencies put a combined 10 billion into steem, they would produce 3.65 billion dollars worth of steemit a year.
Do you know what would happen then? The price of steem would plummet and no one would be able to cash out their currency, because theres 100s of billions of dollars of steem on the market and not nearly enough money out there to buy it.......
Please.... Do you see how this math stacks up? Here at the Earth Nation, we very seriously want to bring millions of users into steem..... We can't the way it is now though, because we know that investors out there will flood the market as soon as they feel confident about their return based on current algorithms.
Please help us fix this vulnerability so we can start bringing our greater networks into this project. One way or another this must be fixed or it will crash the steemit network exchange value and make steem close to worthless.
mmm not sure about that maybe you can expand or clarify.
If 10's of billion of dollars come into steem.....and many of those steem are into steem power....that's locking a lot of the steem power up.
sounds like the thinking highlighted in your concern is that if billions of dollars come in from investors/agencies that we will eventually flood the market and dump it ....which would crash it. This sounds like an ineffective approach from the investor/agency perspective.
I think the point perhaps being missed here is that with increased user adoption and also investor increases...we have multiple compounding network effects....which would likely result in more trading/exchanging within the network...the more a thing is recognized as having value the less one has to "try" to sell it or convert it into something else to be able to actually use it.
curious to here your perspective.
This way of thinking is a bit flawed and here is why.. Lets say you try to buy 1 billion $ worth steem to convert to steem power.. That will affect the price of each steem coin tremendously, price per steem will skyrocket! Next time when you try to buy 1 billion $ worth of steem you will get much less steem coins! Do you see what I am getting at? It seems like you base your argument on static steem price?
And yes I agree with you we need a way to "explore" new authors "quality" posts, without spending hours after hours! I can imagine that it must be frustrating for new authors to get noticed by people with impactful SP!
Next question is who decides which post is a “quality” post? Everyone have different interests/agenda. We need a mechanism to incentivize people to find new "quality" posts but not by forcing anyone to do so. If someone can program an algorithm that fact checks peoples posts would be awesome :D
Maybe if we have a similar system like “witnesses”. If we can vote for steemians that we have similar tastes with and find reliable in every single tag/topic that you are interested in and they get paid to find new authors that they might think that you would like. That might save a lot of time for many people. I am a bit drunk atm and I thought that I had to comment on this reply: D I will get back to you tomorrow!
Yes, we should have a delegated curation team (DCT) per niche where they are voted in monthly by members of the community.
Exactly.. how will we pay for them tho?
They should automatically receive a percentage of the steem reward pool. They should be rated by delegated members and based on that rating, it influences their stake of the reward.
Because they curated it first they should get the biggest piece of the pie.
Well ofcourse; but to say they will curate first isn't something of certainty. It only depends on if they curate first. Eitherway the allocation of a % of the reward to delegated curators pool would have to be independent of normal curaration rewards.
For example delegated curators would get something close to a fixed fee which may vary based on their ranking. Though, this in a way, is going more towards centralisation.
I'm cryptoconfused ;) If people are first to curate, aren't they getting more $$ than people who come later? That is if a post turns out to be popular?