"Celebrity groupies are not ideal for content creation, the heart and soul of Steemit. They are dependent on others to even exist"
But couldn't you say the same about the non-celebrity content creators here though? I mean, monetary value or not, people publish largely for notoriety, if they didn't they'd just write the stuff down and hide it in a drawer somewhere.
It's the engaging kind of content creator-cum-interactors that you refer to here that's needed, in order for Steemit to thrive, and I don't necessarily think being a celebrity nor being only interested in the financial benefits of the activity precludes someone from filling that role. The popularity of Reddit's AMAs is one example that springs to mind - most everyone participating is shilling for something or another, but they pay for it with their time and their willingness to interact beyond a cursory level.
LOL I do have boxes of stuff I've written and never shown anyone. I don't publish for notoriety, but to learn. The value in comments to me is criticism. I'm rarely wrong, because as soon as I find out I am, I change my mind.
I need people to tell me when I'm wrong, so that I can get right. That's a lot of why I write posts. So I am just as dependent on people as any celebrity, but, I think, for all the right reasons.
One of the greatest potentials of Steemit is to break the Celebrity model. When all the commenters receive some benefit from their comment, the community is strengthened. Concentration of wealth in one party is a failed paradigm, but it is the way of the world nonetheless, because Steemit just got here, and it isn't completely jiggered properly yet.
On the Alaskan island where I grew up, the Chief held a potluck to share out the wealth of the tribe before all the fish started stinking. Ostensibly the Chief owned all the fish, but fish aren't a very durable means of storing value, and this forces equity sharing.
Steemit can capitalize on that concept, and is. There remains a problem that does need to be addressed, though. The Chief couldn't give a brave he thought was leering at his squaw a -fish. He could give him less fish than others, or no fish, but he couldn't downvote him.
That's a change Steemit needs to make, because it's gonna cause a whole slew of problems, and preclude broad adoption in the long run.
So, not everyone seeks adulation, and celebrity is the enemy of equity. Steemit can be a cure, by promoting an more egalitarian sharing of the value of content.
This demotes the Chief, but still shares the fish.
The difference is that those authors try to show. The "effort" factor is huge. Followers know this. If they see a content creator that tries over a period of time and gets only some rewards while another earns thousands by just popping in the platform, then this creates the false impression about what the platform is all about.
Celebrities don't even bother to do that. They rather separate themselves from the crowd. This also has been demonstrated here from a few celebrities.
Exactly.