You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Diversify Rewards for Diverse Contributions

in #roadmap20185 years ago (edited)

This seems like a common sense proposal. I'm not sure if it would work, but I'll think about it more. I agree it would be best to have some middle ground where investors can earn in a relatively passive way, because requiring a user to be active (in order to earn more rewards) leads to a certain amount of abuse and can diminish the content quality. @timcliff had a related idea some time ago.

I'm not sure where the sweet spot would be in terms of a return that would keep an investor happy about staying passive while also incentivizing good content, curation, commenting, etc. (active work).

Sort:  

IMO, some very greedy investors will abuse still, while other investors with moderate-greed can be satisfied with the lock-in reward. But it should be easier to catch and punish the more greedy ones than now.

We all agree on the need for passive income but 'investors" will probably not choose to buy Steem Power for 6-7% considering opportunity cost and risks of crypto. If this were double, or around 12%, then yes this would attract investors but again why not focus on the SMTs? If SMTs can provide passive income, or higher interest etc, then investors can buy those and it can indirectly benefit Steem.

My opinion on the sweet spot is just my own opinion. Because crypto is so risky as it is, and 6-7% is barely above inflation, it's just not attractive when people can get the same from stocks with far lower risk and more diversification. SMTs can offer diversification along with the same sort of interest percentages and this could spread risk which would make it more attractive to investors long term.

The main problem I think right now is that Steem only has a few slots to earn rewards and the pie isn't growing. Not everyone wants to be a blogger and even people who blog eventually get burned out, or desire to contribute value in some other way. SMT provides other ways to contribute value which is the only way to grow the pie, but then investors need a reason to want SMTs, and investors need a reason to lock up (supply sinks).

APR is an illusion, especially in crypto world. Some coins have tens of APR but no one likes to invest if the coin prices are decreasing. The point is not APR, but the value of platform.

agree. there is no shortage of coins with 2 or even 3-digits nominal returns.

Right and those are the coins with the majority of investor interest for obvious reasons. It's not so much the value that attracts investors as value investors don't seem to exist in this space right now. We do have speculators, but value investing requires an ability to truly collect enough data to valuate a platform, and in the current environment those metrics are not discussed.

On Coinmarket cap or trading platforms they don't focus on that. Long term investors might if you show an increase in active users over time, then this would work but it is all about metrics and tracking.

If the goal is to attract the average investor then you have to speak their language. If the goal is just to add value, then you need more users, SMTs, and more diversity in the activities.

How do you track value? Which metrics? The market cap? Also APR is what matters for investors at least. The cost to hold any token is measured by the APR and the higher the APR is the lower the cost is for the holder. So if you want more holders a high APR is a way to achieve it.

If you want more value, well as more people connect to each other then based on Metcalfes law the value of the network increases. In other words, the more people using Steemit and the more connected those people become to each other, the more wealth is on Steemit, but this doesn't mean it will be reflected in the price of Steem.

My point is APR is not important factor. But relative APRs among agents, such as investors and authors, can matter as a redistribution policy.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.21
TRX 0.06
JST 0.028
BTC 19090.59
ETH 1061.17
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.96