1% lifetime referral reward on Steemit - does that sounds good in your ears? Suggestion for the DEVs and the witnesses - implement this please! Then we will make Steemit.com known to every person on this planet in no time!
All steemians want Steemit.com to prosper and grow fast, so here is the very simple trick that will do exactly that FAST:
1% lifetime referral reward on Steemit.com - you get 1% of all rewards the people you refer to steemit, ever make!
We have the feature already in the code, its just not used yet. Here is the referral link as an example for my account: https://steemit.com/@lasseehlers?r=lasseehlers
Suggestion for the developers and the witnesses, please implement this as fast as possible, so that Steemit.com will grow fast and the price of Steem will begin to grow, instead of falling even more.
GET IT DONE - and 10.000's or 100.000's of smart guys and girls world wide, will promote Steemit.com, once they have the right incentives!
Lasse Ehlers
Copenhagen, Denmark
I don't support this.
@krnel, why not?
1% forever is a joke. I wouldn't accept that. 1% after some time, until some time, is more realistic. After X [posts|comments|SP|etc.] until Y [posts|comments|SP|etc.].
The problem with this model, is that you never know WHEN people will start posting, it could be 5 years after they signup. That's why only lifetime make sense (I came to this conclusion after today's discussions on SteemSpeak).
I can't say why @krnel doesn't but I can tell you one negative thing. Back in the July-September time frame one of the big negative things we had to fight was "Steemit is a Ponzi scheme". This was the common thing you'd encounter off of Steemit with people bashing it, and there was quite a bit of that debate here as well. Payouts were very insane at the time with people making very large amounts of money off of individual posts.
If we did this 1% lifetime rewards for people who were referred then it would actually become MORE ponzi like. It could work, but it actually can see gimmicky and not standing on its own merits, as typically Ponzi schemes essentially involve incentivizing selling the same Ponzi Scheme to more people in order to actually make money from the Ponzi scheme.
I understand your words, but I do not agree.
A punzi is something completely different.
My suggestion do not involve any money investment, it is an incentive to tell people about Steemit, nothing else.
I didn't state I think it is a Ponzi. I said it would be perceived as such and that was already the common derogatory statement being said about Steemit in the July - September time frame. That was a common thing that many of us were explaining how it is not a Ponzi.
This would be closer to the Ponzi schemes they try to lump us into.
So I am not talking about what you THINK, or what I THINK. I am talking about the PR that would likely arise from the people that have already gone around the web calling it a Ponzi scheme.
That hasn't really been a discussion point for many months now, but at one point it was a very common one.
When you try selling money to people, you lose their trust. People are quick to label something as "too good to be true" or a "pyramid" or "ponzi scheme", so the key will be to add or create features which appeal to the masses in a way that excludes no one. Sure, money is great, but this angle to sell the platform sounds toxic. Give people features which can enrich their lives in some way and I'll wager you'll get a bigger draw of people. People know how to do social media, not as many people understand technology or money (otherwise we'd have fewer poor people in society). Steemit needs to be marketed as a useful product. If your only product = money, you're going to lose public trust and get labeled as a scam, even if you're not a scam.
Yes I also read that last summer. The thing is, that we need an incentive for promoting steemit. As it is now if you promote steemit, you are working FOR FREE, for the people with more steem power then you's, interest. That is not an good incentive, that is properbly also why steemit is not really growing.
To make steemit grow, we need the right incentive for promoting steemit.
People can call it what they want, if its not true, it will not be important.
@winstonwolfe this site is anarcho capitalistic, it is build on the belief that the right monetary incentives make people have the right good behaviours. Thats why we need a strong incentive to tell about steemit to the world, as it is now, the masses on steemit work for free for the whales interests, that does not make sense..
No. Just no, no, no. Public impression is what creates or destroys success. When you want the public to use your product, they need to know they can trust you. Even if they're wrong about what the product is, if they don't trust it, you're not going to get them to join.
We need an incentive to promote steemit... if we don't get it, then the price will keep falling, that's my best guess.
I am not invested in Steemit with money, so what do I care... I mostly care about blockchain technology and would love to see Steemit succeed.
Anyway we are heading for steem = 1 cent, mark my words.
That doesn't matter. If the aim is to draw as much of the entire public as possible, most people aren't even going to understand what that term means. Look at it from THEIR perspective, not yours. You are already sold, they aren't. People look at a new product and think, "How will this benefit me?" as well as "What's the catch?" We need to cater to the former and completely circumvent the latter. Right now, there's nothing from the social media angle that this place offers which they can't get anywhere else (except money, but again that needs to NOT be your main selling point or you lose trust because "it's too good to be true, so it must be a scam").
They can't get non-censorship anywhere else!! Steemit is the only platform offering text on a blockchain.
I want to have an incentive to educate the masses about blockchain, and I believe my suggestion give that to the "promoters" / "educators" or what ever you call us...
That's not a hands-on feature that will sell widely enough. If people cared about censorship as much as you're making them out to, there wouldn't be a soul on Facebook or Reddit. When I say "feature" I mean something no other platform offers that people can use in a hands-on fashion.
Let me put it this way - I don't experience first-hand the feature of not being censored here. In fact, most people don't experience being censored enough during the social networking experience to actively seek that out. Knowing it's there is nice, but so is having car insurance, and I don't find myself looking to have a good time on a Friday night just sitting around the house having insurance. I don't get bored at home and think to myself, "I wonder what insurance rates are right now? That'd be entertaining to look up." Do you see what I mean? It's not something I can actively use the way I might use the ability to do Live Videos on Facebook. That's a cool feature. It doesn't make a huge difference in my life, but it's a fun thing to use.
People want to be sold tools, toys, and entertainment. Try to sell them money and people become instantly skeptical. This is a fact of society, whether you want to agree with it or not.
The masses don't realize that non-censorship and centralization is a huge problem, since most don't see it. Yes I agree... and that is why people who understand this (mostly us already on steemit), need an strong incentive to "educate" the masses about this. And that is what my suggestion do!
Then it's going to turn into you EDUCATING people for free when they don't join. That's a lot of time to spend on something that isn't a primary source of income. I'm sure many of us have full time jobs and lives to live, leaving no time to spend talkijng someone into joining a platform that should be able to sell itself if it had the features people are looking for. In fact, most of the time they're not even looking for it. Some of the most successful products are ones that the people didn't even know they wanted, but it was sold to them in a way which showed them.
As I've said in another chat - people already know how to social media. That's the point of Steemit - create something mostly everyone understands and use that as a gateway into the deeper cryptocurrency levels of the platform as a result, not the other way around.
Sometimes people don't know what they need, and then we need incentives to give them, what they need.
Anyway I just think we see it differently, thanks for the discussion.
And that incentive should NOT be money. I can't say this loudly or repetitively enough: When you sell money to people, you lose their trust.
Steemit is an Anarcho Capitalistic system, so it is based on economic incentive .. so what you write does not make any sense..
I am not "selling money" to people, I am talking about making an economic incentive to promote Steemit. Its 100% in alignment with the anarcho capitalistic philosophy.
Alright, so we're going in circles here. You evidently didn't read what I said the last time you said this, so I'll say it again:
The majority of people have no idea what the hell "anarcho capitalist" means, and will therefore shy away from it.
And with that, I'm done. We are accomplishing 100% of nothing here.
Steemit is Anarcho capitalistic, no matter if people understand it or not... thats another argument for an incentive for promoting Steem / Steemit build in to the blockchain... thanks for your opinion anyways... Cheers :)
Up voted for the thought and you looking for a solution. I actually believe this has a potential to do harm to the platform mostly on a PR level. I explained why when I replied to your reply to @krnel.
I like you trying to think outside the box though. Keep at it.
Thank you for the upvote.
I think @dwinblood and @mindhunter need to read the definition of the word ponzi.
My suggestion is an incentive, you guys are a little confused :)
Not Punzi. Ponzi. Very familiar with the definition. Also you need to read closer. I didn't say it would be a Ponzi scheme. I was not talking about my beliefs, or yours.
Steemit has already been called a Ponzi scheme by some big names when it was doing well. I was one of those defending saying it is not a Ponzi scheme.
This would give them more ammunition to bring that up again, and then it would in fact be closer to a Ponzi Scheme.
Most Ponzi Schemes are
Join this program it costs X
Sell our product and everyone you sell it to increases your income
The product you are selling is the same product you paid X for...
I have argued that steemit is not a Ponzi scheme because you don't have to buy anything, and in fact they give you starting currency and you can immediately start working towards making money without even paying a dime.
The 1% incentive you are talking about is closer to how a Ponzi scheme works, but it is still not a Ponzi.
I did not say I believed it would make Steemit a Ponzi. I haven't read @mindhunter's statement so I don't know if he did. I stated it would be a potential big PR issue because other people would talk about it being a Ponzi scheme.
They already have, and some of them were pretty prominent speakers in the Crypto world. That has mostly stopped, but there was a time when steemit was shooting up like a rocket that this was a common debate on steemit, reddit, facebook, forums, and anywhere else people were talking about steemit.
I wrote this post yesterday... and it is kind of ironic this is coming up since I was talking about the comments I made the most money off of on steemit, and I have my best example in this post, and it is me fighting the "it's a ponzi" statement using poetry.
https://steemit.com/chaospoet/@dwinblood/my-other-account-chaospoet-and-the-early-days-of-that-incarnation
We need an real incentive structure for promoting steemit, it does not exist as it is today.
We are heading for steem = 1 cent, mark my words.
Sure we are heading there. Yet correlation does not equal causation. There are many factors. What incentive does reddit, twitter, facebook have? There are many ways to provide incentive that does not mean giving people a monetary incentive.
That is kind of a last ditch effort if you can't think of anything else.
Steemit is in beta, and they are hard forking and trying things. We hopefully have a lot of the BUGS and changes worked out before a mass of people join. At least those of us here know what is going on and why certain changes are being tried.
I am not against 1% for incentive reasons.
I just don't think we are at the point where we need to worry about that. Yes, steem could hit 1 cent or lower and since it is mostly beta so be it. We are all early adopters. If we get it out of beta and it has issues that could cause PR firestorms worked out (some huge name gets bad and starts trashing steemit for something we could have handled before they join). Then the price of steem will rise on its merrit and value without needing to offer 1%.
Could I be wrong? Sure I often am.
As far as this being Anarcho Capitalistic.... It was founded/created by Anarcho Capitalists... but it is a system and most definitely is not.
The down vote is an incredibly obvious reason why it is not an Anarcho Capitalistic system.
This is someone that if they have more steem power can take away any monetary value other people wanted to use their steem power for based upon purely subjective reasons.
That is not Anarcho Capitalism. The founders are Anarcho Capitalists, but this system is not quite there yet. In all actuality it will be awhile before a true Anarcho Capitalist society EVEN DIGITAL could exist due to human nature. Anarcho Capitalism assumes people will respect the rights of each other. They will form contracts, etc. Yet they would not be able to do anything remotely like a down vote that cancels out someone elses in the community. (EDIT: I said in a community. In a company with a contract they certainly could. That is the challenge here. Steemit and shares is a company trying to be a community, and they don't quite fit together completely yet. We need some out of the box thinking and tweaking to accomplish that)
The most Anarcho Capitalistic thing about steemit at the moment is that you can voluntarily choose to use it, or not use it. Yet this is true of all other sites as well.
The founders though have claimed to be Anarcho Capitalist. I make the same claim that this is what I most identify as.
We dont have the same principals on steemit as on "reddit, twitter, facebook", so you cannot use those non-monetary incentives on steemit. Thats at least my opinion, that I think I have made clear today in this post and on steemspeak..
Anyway I sent a email to @ned and @dantheman with this post... hope they hear my prayer... I really think this incentive is important for steemit's success.
Referrals are a really slippery slope, in my opinion. The problem being that they typically attract completely the wrong of person... I have seen that happen to most failed platforms focused on user-generated content. As @krnel has said in a number of his posts and comments, it turns it into a short term "lottery reward" system with zero lasting value.
For one, presenting Steemit as "a place to make money" is a total disaster. As I have written elsewhere, it unleashes a swarm of "get paid to click buttons" locusts who only care for milking the host site of every penny they can-- by honest AND dishonest means-- and they don't care about quality, sustainability, the long term or anything else.
If Steemit is to be marketed, it must be as a really cool, censorship-free, peer-curated CONTENT site, where rewards are just a nice fringe benefit.
A referral system-- if ANY-- could be used primarily to track "associations." If I write an article about "why I am no longer on Facebook, because Steemit is cooler" it would be nice if people who become members as a result are automatically connected to me, so I would at least be following them, so I could see their content and encourage them to become active. That's cool.
The rewards part? I could MAYBE go for a 1% referral to the referrer ONCE the person you referred (for example) reached 1000SP. That way there's ZERO incentive for referring inactive people... and more incentive for "hand picking" people who feel would be active participants and valuable to the community.
Until the whales lose their domination of power, that's not what this site is. When 2 jurors have the power to decide the verdict, it's not a jury of your peers.
Yes I agree.
As I see it: The lack of promotion incentives and the centralization of steem power, will lead to a LOT lower steem price.... we are heading for 1 cent... and I will not be surprised to see 0,1 cent after that, unless those two major issues are solved fast.
Mmmmm ... sounds very pyramid like! A killer product should find a killer market all by itself. Our product just needs to be more killer to find its 'Product Market Fit' ... then the hungry hordes will come :)
I agree on this thought. That a very good product, should not even need marketing. In reality, its not like this, all new things need marketing.
A one time referal reward, does not work, since people are not buying anything. when signing up.
The lifetime, could be changed to a certain period, like 1 year or 2 years. Even if it is a lifetime period, I do not see this as a pyramid, since you will only get 1% of that one person, you get to the sites rewards, not anything from the people that he or she get here. Its very different from the pyramid schemes you think about. Also its only 1%, its not much, unless you bring a true celebrity here of course, and they should you not be reward for that forever?
Marketing only TRULY works when you have a killer product and a killer market. Perhaps your 1% offer could be offered for a limited time once the product has FULLY matured and the rabid hordes are piling in.
"The lifetime, could be changed to a certain period, like 1 year or 2 years." but I see the lifetime option as a very strong incentive for promoters to do a GREAT JOB.
I meant a limited time we'd run the offer for -- say 3 months??
Its not a strong incentive in my view. The reason for this, is that there is no guarantee that new users will make any rewards in that 3 months, but they might do it a year later or 5 years later. That's why the lifetime period is important.
Agreed, largely. We have to have-- as a starting point-- something here that people want to come here for. It has to be IN PLACE-- we can't rely on those we are bringing in to create the attractive proposition we're telling them is here... that's like inviting people to a great dinner, and then telling them THEY have to cook the great dinner, once they have arrived.
The cart before the horse also comes to mind ;)
AS it is now, Steemit is attractive when more people come here, that's my opinion at least... sure more features would be nice, but more people would be AWESOME.
Here is a completely different angle then the one you and I have been talking about so far.
Also consider this.
Steemit is currently structured so you CAN make money or lose money as the value of steem fluctuates simply by having steem, steem power. This is really the same as any other crypto currency or currency. So this is not what differentiates steem.
You can earn more steem by interacting with the platform. Voting (aka curating), Posting/Blogging, Commenting/Replying.
You earn by participating.
To refer someone you need to convince them to come here. This may take you little effort, it may take you a lot who is to say. If the person is successful then you end up getting 1% of what they produce for life to that BRIEF moment you got them to come here.
That could end up being a phenomenal sum of money for what amounts to doing nothing more than convincing them to sign up and say you referred them.
Would it be nice for a referral reward? If we end up having to go that direction possibly. Yet lifetime 1% likely is insanely high reward for something I think most of us hope will always exist in one point or another from this point forward.
In fact if you got a few big named people you might not need to work a day in your life again if steemit blew up. You wouldn't have to curate, post, reply, or engage with the community at all.
You simply collect your funds for lifetime and call it good.
What I am getting at is that IF we were to do something like this then lifetime is very steep. It should have a term, and end point.
Again, there are important reasons that it needs to be a lifetime thing.
You don't know if that person will use Steemit right away or later in time.
Also I don't think you will that much money from this referral program, unless you are an extreme expert in convincing celebrity content creators. Remember its only 1% of that one person, that you get to the site, not anybody else. So in the end you would be paid for the number of people that you convince about that Steemit is worth trying and are signing up. I see it as a healthy incentive, compared to now, that its the few whales that benefits from all the plankton etc. that promote steemit to people personally.
If it does result in blowing up steem again do recall we had regular people making $10K on a daily basis on posts. So at 1% you'd get $10 of that every time they posted for life. You could do it for life with a cap on referral rewards too such that when it reached a cut off point it was done.
The thing I am seeing here is the for life could be incentive to try to get them engaged too. "I am following you on steemit, but haven't seen you post in awhile"
This could be positive or negative.
As if they don't engage then you don't get anything for your referral so it could get good in that regard.
I've said before I'll try anything at this point as long as we have the understanding that if what we try fails that we take a step backwards and try something else. The problem with FOR LIFE is you are committed. If you realize it was a mistake you can't simply step back and stop paying that referral fee if it fails. You'd need to keep that legacy code in the system for life as well.
If you had some kind of cap, it it was determined you need to scrap the idea then you at least would have a BUY OUT value.
Its an incentive and it needs to be for a lifetime, for reason I explained already.
Thanks for the discussion.
So new user will be earning 1% less than old users? When they'll figure this out, they will be pissed off, and/or they will make another account without referral.
I would prefer a referral reward coming from @Steemit Inc. giving away some of his Steem / SP, or something like that.
Everyone would be referred by somebody, so there will not be the problem you mention. As for account without a referee, the 1% could go somewhere else or be burned, not really that important. I agree that with that the 1% should apply for everyone.
About the Steemit Inc wallet, I think its huge problem for Steem that there is so much Steem in that wallet.... I dont know the solution for this, but properbly that account need to be burned or something like that... I guess Steemit Inc don't agree on this, but thats my opinion... and I think that potentially a competitor will come along, if the Steemit Inc, keeps holding 46% of all steem or whatever it is, and the price of Steem will keep falling.
1% of a top writer is different from 1% of a lurker, so I think this would lead to some injustice.
Steemit Inc wallet is not a problem for Steemit website, cause it's not voting. You can't burn money of the shareholders!
I think its a problem, since it makes the power centralized. I dont understand how there can be shareholders, when its a cryptocurrency build on tokens... maybe its just me, I always thought their Steemit inc, was a little strange, then they at the same time say they are building a decentralized platform... this setup could be one more reason Steem is falling in price...
I like to be part of new things that I see potential in... but I always had doubt about this part of their setup!
It think its completely fair to get 1% of what ever the new user make, if you bring quality creators you get more then if you bring low quality creators... it makes 100% sense to me.
@lasseehlers it's interesting that you call steemit anarcho-capitalistic,because anarcho capitalism is just the worst ideology ever,it's so wrong on all levels that I don't know where to even start.And the domination of an-caps and libertairans on this platform is one of the things that sometimes makes me wonder if I should quit Steemit.
Anarcho-capitalism is just more of all that is wrong with the world,letting money and profits be the deciding factors in our lives. We are already approaching a state of corporate oligarchy,and please don't say that we live in socialist society like all the other an-caps. We need a society that is ruled by positive values,humanitarian and ecological values,not this free market hedonistic mysticism
.Anarcho-capitalism is an ideology which most people are unfamiliar with,and of those who are familiar with it,most of us rightfully detest it.
Ok @kooshikoo... thanks for your comment..
If you don't like Anarcho Capitalism, you have no business on Steemit!...
But on the other side, you should be a true Anarcho Capitalist... as that is the most peaceful philosophy of human society ever!
Please "educate yourself"... and as I said Steemit is truly Anarcho capitalistic... so if you don't believe in that, go back to facebook, ok!.. :)
Your comment is so indicative of the peacuful nature of anarcho-capitalism!Thanks,good sir!Yes I will go back to facebook now,and let you and your fellow an-caps rule steemit and the world.And you can privatize everything,including the water,in a voluntary fashion,it will be marvelous!! I will go read a book by Ayn rand now,and do some an-cap free market chanting in the local an-cap church.
YAY!!
He... you are just an anarchistic socialist or anarchistic communist, that still got your gov indoctrination in you,. from the school you been in, the society and your family... don't worry and don't take it as an offense, I was like you ones... one day you will come back here and thank me :)
THat is one of the most misguided and arrogant statements I have ever heard.I'm a communalist,look it up.And not a fan of governments at all.Your condescending tone and misguided arrogance means that this discussion is futile.Over and out.
I looked it up: "Communalism usually refers to a system that integrates communal ownership and federations of highly localised independent communities. A prominent libertarian socialist, Murray Bookchin defines the Communalism (capital C) he developed as "a theory of government or a system of government in which independent communes participate in a federation", as well as "the principles and practice of communal ownership".[1][2]"
I do not believe in any government and I believe in Anarchy... so yes I am an Anacho Capitalist ... anyway interesting discussion today in this post. Thank you.
Lasse
@lasseehlers, You misinterpreted the word government in that context,try to read it as voluntary communal governance,and you start to get the picture.And yes,I'm a big fan of Bookchin,you shoud read his books,and learn about the kind of anarchism that respects the integrity and value of humans,animals and the whole ecosystem,as well as being a post scarcity philosophy.Of course,in this system there is no place for property rights by private entities,instead property is controlled locally,in a direct democratic system,without any autorities,where everyone has a vote.THis has nothing at all to do with your view of government.I don't like governments either,but there is a role for governments still, ina very limited sense they can still counteract corporate power and abuse,although now they are mostly conntrolled by corporate interests,with their lobbyists,and completely dependent on the global capitalism.To some limited extent they provide the general public with some ability to influence matters,whereas the decisions of corporations are totally out of reach for normal people.
How would people have influence in a world where property rights are a guiding principle?