RE: Content-Type Value and Reward Discussion
Except when most people want $$$, and most people decide... then you get most people:
name: I hate most sports .. but steemsports you must ..it is the absolute best way to accumulate STEEM
name: other than getting lucky posting crap
Which demonstrates what I'm talking about. Content creators vs. useless eater. Workers vs. Freeloaders. Some people just want to get free money without doing anything but pick a team or do some clicks. I don't want Steemit to cater to these people, even if they come in in droves and make up the majority of the platform. That is a dead platform of leeches siphoning everything while the people who work to create content try to keep it afloat and get less potential rewards overall as more of these other posts are rewarded.
I agree to some extent, but ask you to consider this free-loading like Bitcoin mining. The difference is that more people can get involved. As people learn that the tokens have value they will start to use them as currency.
Bootstrapping a currency that is widely accepted is the single biggest product that Steem can produce (in terms of ROI). Rewarding content producers and creating censorship free discussion helps bring people into the currency.
If Steem had facebook's user base the Steem token would be a global currency larger than most countries and it would trade at market caps well in excess of facebook.
Yeah, I get that, and recall it from the "master plan" for world domination. More people get involved, but to what extent. People also use Facebook as a chat replacement to what used to be popular like AOL, ICQ, MSNMessenger, and skype still is. That feature allows people to interconnect on anything, regardless of any content on the platform. If bootstrapping goes with the popularity of some content for the sake of popularity alone, when does it change to a more quality focus instead of a quantity focus?
But "people who work to create content" don't create the exchange value of STEEM or SBD. Investors do. By your logic, I could argue all the content creators are "free loaders" also, right?
My point is, it's not so black and white. Value is subjective. "I don't want Steemit to..." is just your opinion among many. Your opinion (or mine, or anyone's) is not law. That said, we should keep expressing our opinions and working to influence others of our reason and logic, especially if we want to support the long-term value of Steemit.
But they do. Imagine Steemit, the "whatever" platform, with no content. Where is the value? What is the backing that gives Steemit any real world value then? Nothing. Just like any other shitcoin. I have talked about how Steemit actually has real world value because of the content creators: STEEM Has Real Value - STEEM is the Most Valuable Cryptocurrency, People Just Don't Know it Yet
A cryptocurrency with no investors is also worth nothing. Again, it's not black and white. I agree, the content creates value which then interests investors and users.
From your post:
Yes... but I also think the investors play a larger role than the content creators. If they aren't propping up the price of STEEM or SBD, then changes will be made.
Also:
While I agree with your perspectives on the importance of truth and morality and great content here, I also recognize how difficult defining universals within the context of humanity is. My impression of your post here seemed to contradict what you said early in that some things really could be more "deserving" than others, but I see that as subjective.
As an example, some think it's "true" that pornography is immoral and bad. Others argue it's not immoral if there are no real victims and it's done voluntarily. If we then try to demonstrate the "truths" here, we run into problems of understanding how much of our culture influences our systems for measuring good and bad. Maybe the bad parts of pornography actually come from twisted perspectives in our culture about the human body and human sexuality?
Either way, I commend your efforts to call others to a higher level of valuable content here. I also want to caution against telling others what they value is objectively not valuable. If they value it, then clearly it is valuable to them, even if, over the long term, it's not beneficial.