You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: CONTEST! | Operation Mass Adoption | 12,000 Steem in Prizes
Well things are looking better now more than ever with the new leaders and cost cutting, which has been major factor since Steemit funded itself only from selling Steem and they had running costs above 200k/month
What a lovely perpetuum mobile :D
Well, there's really no problem in that activity other than Ned seemed okay spending over 200k/month for servers... for years causing a huge downward pressure on price. You can also see all the little changes that are happening under the new lead. If only we'd had such leadership from the beginning, makes an investor a bit sad.
We'll see if Steem recovers, hopefully we sort out our content discovery first so people won't just come due to spike in price and leave right after seeing that trending is just reserved for advertising and manual curation is minimal.
In that case, Ned can't do math / doesn't have a product / business plan.
200 k/month x 12 months = 2.5 M/year
FB is making 50... 50.000 M/year
Complaining about spending 2.5 M per year is childish.
Reason No.2 to support my first sentence is the fact that Ned started with several million.
5.000.000 Steem x 0.3 $/Steem = 1.5 Million $ = servers are expensive
If the product *(Steemit) were good, Steem/BTC ratio would remain the same
5.000.000 Steem x 3 $/Steeem = 15.000.000 $ = he can run his servers from a mention. For years. Even if not profitable
Yes, considering the current userbase Steemit has, just spending few millions to run servers alone was insane and resulted in a huge, constant, negative pressure on Steem prices since that was the ONLY revenue source for Steemit inc for a long time. No matter how good the product is, that kind of activity from the founders themselves will drive the price down, especially if they aren't making people feel confident about the future of the system through their own actions. If there would be enough demand to support high Steem prices, then sure, few millions in expenses wouldn't be bad for Steemit Inc, but in these early days, it's crucial to have some upward momentum in price discovery, as that will attract big investors and more users. Currently we're ranked at #63 coinmarketcap, that's very bad spot to be in and it'll get even worse if we manage to fall out of top 100 since what we need is exposure.
I don't think Ned had any previous experience of being CEO, nor did he himself build Steem, Dan did and he left to build EOS. It took a lot of time and effort from community to convince him to just hire professional and save this sinking ship. And the difference has been like night and day ever since. We're actually seeing some sensible additions to Steemit, we're seeing improved communications and that means a lot in a ecosystem like Steem.
I will continue my power down and I'll keep buying other crypto from earned Steem.
Hopefully, it will survive for a month or two
I wouldn't discard Steem so easily, we've been at 7 cents before and Steem still does a great job at attracting crowd that perhaps wouldn't otherwise use crypto. If only the distribution of stake would've been done differently, like bitcoin for example...
At least I'd leave some Steem to storage so if it ever pumps, you can benefit from the run up. Usually the spikes have been quite large but short lived. And if you're planning to leave for good, even then I'd leave 100 steem as SP and selling votes for bidbots passively with auto claim for rewards. If Steem ever becomes popular like Eth, that'll go a long way.