RE: Community at its Best? Well, partly...
While I like Steemstem (even went to the meet up) I find troubling the idea of what is or not the most valuable content in the platform. Particularly because is a social platform and social signaling and interactions are what most find valuable.
If one want's the platform to grow for instance. One can make the case that subsidising the lowest common denominator content is actually good as it gives the impression to people outside the platform that they have a chance. (I bought a lambo by writing about my favorite movies, food, Pokemon games)
If one wants to improve quality then random rewards actually do work better than meritocracy. As meritocracy actually benefits those who are lucky the most.
The best approach is to solve problems and to lead by example.
The trouble with the cryptosphere is that people have gotten too used to making money from nothing. They invest in some shitcoin, which adds zero value to the world, and 100x their money in a year.
I think everyone, in this space, is in for a rude awakening over next few years. Many of those coins will go back to zero where they belong.
Money is supposed to compensate labor. We won't pay money to watch a low budget movie, with shit actors and special effects, edited on an iPad. We won't pay someone to take care of our medical problems if they haven't studied their whole lives. We won't invest in a traditional stock which has shown no impact in its industry.
Steemit is lucky because they have first mover advantage, with their model. So did MySpace though. What happens if YouTube, Reddit, Facebook, Instagram adopt a similar model? If we want this platform to grow, we need to add value to the people who visit.
No newcomers, with lots of money, are going to invest in a platform full of shit content.
No skilled individuals will come onboard, just to get buried in a wave of crap.
So whats left? A few whales, who got involved right at the beginning. They will then suck the reward pools dry, until steem is worth zero, and then move off into the sunset.
First mover advantage is a relative position. Even before myspace, there were social networks that were 'first' like Friendster. Rebranding has a lot to do with being a first mover at something. Is hard to maintain that Steem has first mover advantage without some serious rebranding. Bitcoin has that. Other media networks have that.
The idea of 'we have something good going on here, we have to make it grow in a sustainable way' is something that happens to most newcomers in a network that benefits them. Self-interest works.
The fact this worry emerges is a testament to the low barriers to entry and how they incentivize sustainable personal self-interest. While the growth benefits from low barriers to access and success.
The question is: what works?
Most of the growth of the 'crypto' space is based on subsidizing mediocrity. What one can't deny is that is growing. The more it grows the more competition there is. Networks subsidies self-sort quality based on their own rules as time goes by.
You make some interesting points. Thank you for sharing them.
I guess we will have to wait to see what happens. I hope, Steemit will survive and thrive for many years to come.
In the meantime, Im keen to see some more videos from you. The last one was cool.
I will post this week (since steemstem is on a break). I have been busy and the people in discord that were asking for payments kind of got me bored.