You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Report as Steem Representative, 25.05.2024
So, that all just feels like another way to have the attention of the curators.
I felt that way right from the start.
I also never understood what the point was. What is better? Not producing Steem at all because the content of an article doesn't invite votes, or burning Steem that wouldn't have existed under "normal" circumstances?
I really couldn't tell which one of those is better :)
Burning is always helpful long-terms as it decreases the inflation of STEEM as it is, in my understanding, endless, as contrary to Bitcoin, STEEM doesn't have Max. Supply, right?
Perhaps much better for the future of STEEM would be if there are top investors who aren't faceless and famous people are somehow attracted to the blockchain.
I read crypto-related news on a daily basis and I never saw anything related to STEEM, like... ever.
Publicity is good, right? However, if the big whales here don't want such publicity and also prefer to rather stay anonymous forever, then this raises some serious questions... Anyway :)
I see there are users who upvote only posts with Burn 25% and this already changes the landscape a lot...